Change In Farming Can Feed World - Report
Sixty countries backed by the World Bank and most UN bodies yesterday called for radical changes in world farming to avert increasing regional food shortages, escalating prices and growing environmental problems.
But in a move that has led to the US, UK, Australia and Canada not yet endorsing the report, the authors said GM technology was not a quick fix to feed the world’s poor and argued that growing biofuel crops for automobiles threatened to increase worldwide malnutrition.
The report was issued as the UN’s World Food Programme called for rich countries to contribute $500m (£255m) to immediately address a growing global food crisis which has seen staple food price rises of up to 80% in some countries, and food riots in many cities. According to the World Bank, 33 countries are now in danger of political destabilisation and internal conflict following food price inflation.
The authors of the 2,500-page International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD] say the world produces enough food for everyone, yet more than 800 million people go hungry. “Food is cheaper and diets are better than 40 years ago, but malnutrition and food insecurity threaten millions,” they write. “Rising populations and incomes will intensify food demand, especially for meat and milk which will compete for land with crops, as will biofuels. The unequal distribution of food and conflict over control of the world’s dwindling natural resources presents a major political and social challenge to governments, likely to reach crisis status as climate change advances and world population expands from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050.”
Robert Watson, director of IAASTD and chief scientist at the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: “Business as usual will hurt the poor. It will not work. We have to applaud global increases in food production but not everyone has benefited. We have not succeeded globally. In some parts of India 50% of children are still malnourished. That is not success.”
Watson said governments and industry focused too narrowly on increasing food production, with little regard for natural resources or food security. “Continuing with current trends would mean the earth’s haves and have-nots splitting further apart,” he said. ” It would leave us facing a world nobody would want to inhabit. We have to make food more affordable and nutritious without degrading the land.”
The report - the first significant attempt to involve governments, NGOs and industries from rich and poor countries - took 400 scientists four years to complete. The present system of food production and the way food is traded around the world, the authors concluded, has led to a highly unequal distribution of benefits and serious adverse ecological effects and was now contributing to climate change.
The authors say science and technology should be targeted towards raising yields but also protecting soils, water and forests. “Investment in agricultural science has decreased yet we urgently need sustainable ways to produce food. Incentives for science to address the issues that matter to the poor are weak,” said Watson.
The GM industry, which helped fund the report, together with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the British and US governments, abandoned talks last year after heated debate.
The scientists said they saw little role for GM, as it is currently practised, in feeding the poor on a large scale . “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable,” said the report.
“The short answer to whether transgenic crops can feed the world is ‘no’. But they could contribute. We must understand their costs and benefits,” said Watson yesterday.
The authors also warned that the global rush to biofuels was not sustainable. “The diversion of crops to fuel can raise food prices and reduce our ability to alleviate hunger. The negative social effects risk being exacerbated in cases where small-scale farmers are marginalised or displaced form their land,” they said.
Responding to the report, a group of eight international environment and consumer groups, including Third World Network, Practical Action, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, said in a statement: “This is a sobering account of the failure of industrial farming. Small-scale farmers and ecological methods provide the way forward to avert the current food crisis and meet the needs of communities.”
Lim Li Chung, of Third World Network in Malaysia, said: “It clearly shows that small-scale farmers and the environment lose under trade liberalisation. Developing countries must exercise their right to stop the flood of cheap subsidised products from the north.”
Guilhem Calvo, an adviser with the ecological and earth sciences division of Unesco, one of the report’s sponsors, said at a news conference in Paris: “We must develop agriculture that is less dependent on fossil fuels, favours the use of locally available resources and explores the use of natural processes such as crop rotation and use of organic fertilisers.”
At a glance
Bio-energy The report says biofuels compete for land and water with food crops and are inefficient. They can cause deforestation and damage soils and water.
Biotechnology The use of GM crops, where the technology is not contained, is contentious, the UN says. Data on some crops indicate highly variable yield gains in some places and declines in others.
Climate change While modest temperature rises may increase food yields in some areas, a general warming risks damaging all regions of the globe. There will be serious potential for conflict over habitable land.
Trade and markets
Subsidies distort the use of resources and benefit industrialised nations at the expense of developing countries.
© 2008 The Guardian
Back to the future? No, back to the past. “Peasant farming will fix everything, just like it did in the past.” Technology is clearly not the whole answer, but how can inceased yield be part of the problem? The problem is giving the poor access to technology. It does no good to give someone without electric a motor driven water pump. This does not mean that electric water pumps are part of the problem.
Do a search for Effective Microorganisms. It is said that the use of EM can eliminate the need for agricultural chemicals and fertilizer with an increase in quality and quantity of produce.
Going vegetarian or vegan is a great way to withdraw ones support for resource-intensive agriculture and to free up more food for humans to eat (and yes, there are obviously political/distribution issues to account for).
But when it takes 700 calories to produce 100 calories of meat, it seems pretty unethical to be funneling edible food through the bodies of animals–who are often exploited and abused on top of it.
Even cutting down one’s consumption can help…Free veg starter kit, http://www.exploreveg.org/resources/vsk.html
Removing the WTO and World Bank Loan Sharks from the global gene pool will help.
Screw it. Lets just raise humans for meat. I hear they taste just like chicken.
HolisticActivism - Right on! Reducing meat consumption is a great personal way to help. We have willingly reduced the number of children per couple in the US to stabilize the population (not counting immigration), so why can’t we also willingly reduce meat consumption. We can and we will be healthier for it also.
Here’s where to start–check how Canada wastes taxpayers money to prop up the meat industry. In additon to the extreme misery–think of all that wasted water and livestock feed.
Another winner from the pro meat-anti life interests.
Ottawa to pay farmers $50-million to slaughter hogs
PAUL WALDIE AND JOE FRIESEN
From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail
April 15, 2008 at 12:27 AM EDT
TORONTO AND WINNIPEG — In an unprecedented move, the federal government plans to pay hog farmers up to $50-million in total to slaughter as many as 150,000 breeding swine.
Farmers will receive $225 for every hog they kill, so long as they agree to wipe out their entire breeding herd and stay out of the hog business for three years. The government hopes the program will reduce a glut on the market that has helped drive down prices.
“It’s a pretty drastic step,” said Clare Schlegel, a hog farmer near Kitchener, Ont., who is also president of the Canadian Pork Council. The $225 price is roughly four times what a farmer would get for a culled hog on the market today, he added.
Mr. Schlegel said the massive cull, which is expected to reduce the nation’s breeding herd by 10 per cent, is the only way to save thousands of hog farmers across Canada. “We’re under a fair bit of economic stress and turmoil,” he said, adding that he is losing as much as $65 on each pig on his farm.
Rising feed prices and the stronger Canadian dollar have pummelled pork producers, pushing many out of business and leaving others struggling to get by.
This month, Stomp Farms Ltd., the second-largest hog producer in Saskatchewan, filed for bankruptcy protection and many other farmers have quietly sold off their stock.
Joe Kleinsasser, who runs a hog farm south of Saskatoon, said he is losing roughly $50 a pig even though he grows his own feed grain. “You are looking at a very dire situation,” Mr. Kleinsasser said.
Hog prices have sunk more than 20 per cent in the past year, to about $100 a pig. Meanwhile, costs – especially feed grain – have soared by more than 50 per cent, pushing the overall cost per animal well above $150. Feed accounts for roughly 60 per cent of the cost of raising a pig. Hog farming has become specialized and capital intensive, making it difficult for farmers to switch to producing other commodities.
The stronger Canadian dollar has also hurt farmers because hog prices are set in the United States. So as the Canadian dollar strengthened, the return to Canadian farmers shrank. But as the U.S. dollar weakened, American farmers found new export markets for their pork. As a result, while Canadian farmers have been cutting back on their herds, U.S. farmers have been raising more hogs.
The total number of pigs on Canadian farms fell 6 per cent last year to 14 million (that includes about 1.5 million hogs used for breeding). However, the total U.S. herd increased 4 per cent in 2007 to just over 65 million hogs. It jumped 6 per cent in 2006.
“There’s an awful lot of hogs out there,” said Kevin Grier, a senior analyst at the George Morris Centre in Guelph, Ont., which studies agri-food issues. Canadian farmers “are losing a lot more than the Americans are,” he said. “The only way it will turn around is by a reduction in hog numbers.
Another major headache for Canadian producers is the introduction of new country-of-origin labelling laws in the United States next September. Canadian farmers export more than half their hogs to the U.S.
The legislation has grocery retailers in the U.S. nervous about selling specially labelled meat, and many have started to refuse to take any pork products that originated in Canada because of the added regulatory burden. That has hit farmers in Manitoba, one of the largest pork-producing provinces, especially hard.
Karl Kynoch, chair of the Manitoba Pork Council, said killing pigs with no market for them is a last resort for producers, but many may have no choice but to join a mass cull.
“We’re in extremely severe times here and some producers are having to make that choice, even though it goes against everything they believe in,” Mr. Kynoch said.
“Every week we hear of more producers closing their operations because they’re not able to feed the pigs any more,” Mr. Kynoch said.
George Matheson, who farms near Stonewall, Man., said he doesn’t want to take federal government money to cull his animals. He believes the industry will turn around a year from now, citing positive signs of a price increase in the futures markets.
“I haven’t run out of money yet, but I’m getting pretty close,” he said.
Sounds like you are advocating policy like the war on drugs. Go after the producers instead of reducing demand. I thought you all were liberals?
Simple way to help feed the planet:
STOP TURNING FOOD CROPS INTO FUELS FOR CARS!!
Amazing how no one is advocating the end of burning food in our gas tanks!
“No No No…We can’t do that! We spent all that time and money brainwas…er…CONVINCING the decadent American slobs to embrace this so we can blame ADM and agribusiness (and GWB) for all the woes of the world!”
Pop quiz! Who was the last president to advocate the wholesale destruction of crops?
Here’s a crazy thought. We are experiencing economic hardship due to high oil prices. How about us demonstrating our power by raising food prices? Oh wait, we’ll get into political hot water if we do that. The how about we say that we are solving our fuel shortage by subsidizing ethanol from corn? That will drive up grain demand and create a food shortage and high prices, but we can point at the oil suppliers and say its really all therir fault (which technically it is). What a plan! They hold us hostage by restricting oil supplies and we’ll restrict food. Who will blink first.
Unsettling how close we really seem to be getting to Soylent Green.
I’d take that free veggie kit and feed it to my cows. In fact, send me about 100 of them so I can feed the herd for a day. Does a vegan go to the grocery store every day; or do you just get down on all fours and munch on your lawn? Cattle eat grass but I’ve never seen a person eat grass from the ground. Perhaps the human race should become grazers and nibble the grass like cows, oh wait a second, grass like most vegetables has cellulose, which I think means humans can’t get much nutrition from it. Beef, it’s what’s for dinner.
It’s all over but the crying.
There aren’t even cute and funny things to say anymore.
The great majority of people know exactly how agriculture should commence in order to feed the world, after visiting a farm. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude what is the obvious agriculture system for optimum health of people/planet: Having some 40% of the population gather wild food, cultivate the better selections of wild food species with minimal inputs/disturbance in ranges extending from the wilds to the yards of people’s homes, food preservation for temperate climates, and coordinated regional surpluses to compensate deficits. Cooperation is the keyword, and it is practiced still in rural areas, forming the basis of rural culture. This cooperation is one of the aspects of rural culture that divided rural and urban populations politically over the period of 1950 to 1990 in the US. Ironically, the urban US was biting the hand that feeds when criticizing the cooperative aspect of the rural culture. During this period the cooperative aspect was finally stomped out, i.e. the the industrial north smashed the rural south AGAIN in the great 20th century US civil war. The result we have now: The industrial agriculture godzilla rose up to use the people’s hunger as a pretext to expand its economic power and political influence, its consumption of fossil fuels, water and land, making the most resource intensive food - beef - the cheapest in retail price to maximize economic activity, more Pentagon taxes per calorie consumed, ehh? New York Stock Exchange, Chicago Commodities Exchange, rampage and destruction on people/planet, Hellary, O’Bama, and Mackain, ehh? Godzilla gave you three great candidates of industrial destruction for you to select from!! Help perpetuate the rampage!!
If ALL the cattle ate was grass then what is all that Grain-fed beef jazz advertised? Beef, it’s what’s a big waste, tasty tho it is.
DCNATIONS:
Most cattle in the U.S. are not raised on
grass (but you know that).
I find that even among so called Progressives,
such as many of the people who check out this
list, there is so often a certain defensiveness
when anyone suggests that vegetarianism might
be part of the solution.
Bruce.
The knowledge exists for local production/consumption. For instance you can do a search for Edible Forest Gardening a 2007 publication contains extensive information on soil ecology and balances, floral and faunal integration, etc. self-maintaining, self-regulating, self-fertilizing, self-renewing. Encyclopedias like this contain the knowhow. CSA structures provide accessibility models for communities.
Perennial Polyculture Gardening, small farm organizations, expanding understanding of organic perspectives that have always existed - just not gotten the attention they deserve - are being compiled and published.
The photo above captures the anglo capitalist killing the filipino children with white rice. Walk into any East Asian ethnic grocery and you’ll find black and red rice which have huge amounts of nutritious and protective macro and micronutrients that have all been removed from white rice - leaving only starch (sugar). The racket works like this: The capitalist sets a goal to make a “good business” for himself, for acceptance in his capitalist community. He figures that milling off the husk, bran and germ will make the people dependent on him and his mill so they will gradually stop growing their own food or buying it from their neighbors, and gradually shift to dependence on him and his mill. After his banker friend fabricates money out of thin air for several decades to subsidize him, the capitalist succeeds in addicting the population to his milled white rice. He used pretexts to convince them they needed milled rice, such as milling extending the shelf life, more energy density, and “better taste”. The capitalist assaults the people four times over with his milled white rice: 1.) destroys their health with terrible nutrition, 2.) encourages ignorance, discourages enlightenment, 3.) destroys their food security, independence, 4.) harms the environment with unnecessary industry, and moves on with his profits to further stupid/destructive enterprises.
Vandana Shiva has been trying to tell the world about this
for the last ten years. She’s very famous and much loved in the South. Her voice has been too often silenced in the North by the people who are getting too rich from other people’s misery- Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, big agro business etc.
her newest book is Earth Democracy
and this is one of her websites:
http://www.navdanya.org/earthdcracy/index.htm
How is “Going vegetarian or vegan” a great way to withdraw ones support for resource-intensive agriculture. I am about sick of hearing this. IT IS CORPORATE BRAINWASHING. It is the most resource intensive agriculture there is. Vegetables for the most part are annuals. Annuals are grown where the soil is plowed up every year, killing untold amounts of animals, ducks and their eggs, furry creatures, as well as trillions of soil creatures, and causing massive erosion.
Corporately grown vegies are grown in soil covered with herbicides and pesticides. Have you ever been on a corporate farm? My uncle used to grow soybeans…the touted favored food of vegetarians and vegans. Now they are grown in the Amazon where the jungle lungs of the earth are being decimated to grow soybeans for vegetarians and vegans. I got sick every time I would visit my uncle’s farm from the chemicals in the air and in the water.
You are talking about corporate feed lot beef…which is grain fed and not fit to be eaten. It is disgusting. Go visit a farm that features grass fed beef, goats, chickens, hogs, etc. Yes there aren’t so many of them left because Corporate Ag destroyed the family farm in most parts of the USA. You like eating vegetables from a 3000 acre mono cropped farm?
So if you want to be environmental…let’s talk organic vegetables and grass fed beef.
Read the recent Cornell study: Diet for small planet may be most efficient if it includes dairy and a little meat. They are talking about the environmental footprint.
Besides that, eating grass fed beef and dairy from grass fed cows makes us very healthy. Watch all your health problems go away.
Eating unfermented soybeans gives us thyroid problems, and infertility in boys. Do your homework.
Oh no, watch out. The Soy Lobby is one of the largest food lobbies in the world. That’s why there are GMO soy manufacturing wastes put in almost all corporate food products in the supermarkets, even vegan foods.
If you really want to help the environment, grow your own food. Then there is no fossil fuel used to bring your food to your home. No grass…once again grow your own.
A progressive like me defensive about vegetarian/vegan diets? Right, I am. It destroyed my health and my teeth. All my friends and I who were vegetarians now have rotten teeth from being vegie/vegan. We were so politically correct while we became nutrient depleted. Animal fats heal.
Check out Heifer Int’l and read about people worldwide who are vegetarians, not by choice, and are desperate for animals to give them life-enhancing saturated animal fats that heal the brain (despite what Corporate Nutrition has brainwashed us to believe).
Check out Permaculture for taking responsibility for your food based on creating perennial food forests, and ecological gardening.
Check out Weston A. Price foundation. Take their tour for vegatarians on page 2. And support your local (non-corporate) family farmer, rancher and dairy people. Keep them in business.
And join a local organically grown CSA. Our local one has organic vegetables and fruits, grass-raised chickens and quail and their eggs.
rtdrury - I got the white rice/no nutrition vs. brown rice/nutrition lecture from my father and switched a few years ago so I hear ya loud and clear. Anyone interested in where this is all going next? Watch this:
The World According to Monsanto video documentary. Not only do we need to know WHAT’s in our food, we need to know WHERE the ingredients came from. Are they GMO or not? If you eat mainstream foods you should expect that you consume many GMO foods.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19738.htm
Suggestions:
Growing food requires raw land — not macadam, malls, 5-acre zoning accompanying a McMansion. Preserving the land requires cooperation and a spirit of community.
Start where we live to change zoning ordinances to protect and preserve raw land and farmland from thoughtless, willy-nilly development. Work to support food co-ops (which can help keep independent farmers alive) and support farmer’s markets. “Know your farmer.” Put those dollars to work supporting independent farming instead of agribusiness.
Get all those with real estate connections off the city councils and county boards. And follow local real estate deals very carefully since real-estate interests are among the top donors to political campaigns.
It’s all over but the crying.
There aren’t even cute and funny things to say anymore.
practicalpermacultur wrote: So if you want to be environmental…let’s talk organic vegetables and grass fed beef.
So if you want to be truly environmental (and not just offering lip-service)…let’s talk organic vegetables.
You assertion that a veg/vegan diet “destroyed your teeth and health” is difficult to believe, and that “animal fats heal” is specious. My guess is that your consumption of sugar/HFCS was high. I’m 61, still with my own teeth and 4 cavities over a lifetime of veg/vegan eating. I have never met anyone who makes your claims, but that may be more an indicator of the company I keep.
Are you shilling for some corporate permaculture organization?
Lets talk about manure. It is organic fertilizer. We currently use all that is available on crops. But we should really start raising a bunch more animals so we can eliminate all synthetic fertilizer. We should pile the manure in urban neighborhoods in the yards of organic folks so they can really enjoy it. To save energy, we should keep all the cow and pigs in the urban yards too. At least, this way we can avoid destroying more wild habitat. All that lawn is useless to most wildlife anyway. Great idea - a real organic neighborhood.
Mr. Ovious wrote: Great idea - a real organic neighborhood.
Good idea. Children growing in such an environment will be healthier than their sterile-environment peers, ultimately reducing health-care costs.
Problem is, no-one gets rich in such a scheme so it is doomed before it can even start.
WTF -I don’t think anyone is a shill.
But please inform us as to how a sustainable farm can fertilize without animal manure?
And once we see the need for animals on the farm, what exactly is the practical reason for refraining from eating them or their milk or eggs at least?
I can totally see the argument for a flexitarian mostly plant diet- I mean, I can’t see a superior diet for the “mostly local” eater- but if one is going to keep a cow or goats or sheep and some chickens, then what is one to do with their milk and eggs? If they’re not getting fertilized or knocked up then it’d just be going to waste wouldn’t it?
What do you do when ol’Daisy finally moves on to those green pastures in the sky? Bury her and give her a little tombstone? When there are hungry people in your community that wouldn’t turn their noses to old cow stew?
I think that’s a pretty messed up way to behave and I hope no one here is contemplating doing so, don’t you?
Remmber also that Intensive Rotational Grazing is starting to demonstrate that small-scale herbivore raising “grass farms” may be superior to polyculture crops or “just letting it rest” in terms of soil health restoration.
Finally some thoughts on the whole “less energy efficient” in terms of calories bit.
1. This is only really a good argument when were speaking in terms of fossil energy -I don’t think we need worry about the calorie difference between a pasture and a corn feild in terms of Solar output.
2. The energy use difference in meat vs. veggies is less (though still pronounced) when you talk in terms of local grass rotated instead of CAFOs and trucking the poor guys all around the country.
3. A better argument -because it is less dependent on fossil energy use for its relevance - would seem to be the “land-use” one. But even this is partly unraveled by the facts that a) much of the world’s land is not suitible for plant foods but CAN generate large amounts of animal food. And b)many animal foods can be raised on much smaller patches of land and with less guaranteed light and rain than plant foods -think urban chicken coops, you could even due free range, a goat and several laying hens could be quite happy in the average American Backyard.
4. Perhaps the argument should focus on the over production of beef cattle instead of meat in general. Goats, sheep, and especially chickens are FAR more efficient at converting feed into meat. And for grazing puposes Goats are a boon compared to cattle, their eating habits can be less plant-life detructive if they are properly herded. But we can’t shift the argument this way can we? Because it’s not a practical “let’s feed ourselves and make the planet healthier” one is it? It’s a “I’m morally correct because my moral outlook says so and you must change to conform with my view” argument, and that’s the problem.
5. This “calorie efficiency” argument is only ever made by the VegHeads on the PRODUCTION side, what about the CONSUMPTION side of the equation? Find me the 4 oz serving of vegetables that equals the calories of a 4 oz serving of beef and you might just be able to convince me that the Humans of the World will voluntarily go Veggie-Only. Yes, I know there’s nutrient advantages to vegetables -that’s why I choose to eat them for most of my diet. But a Hungry Human wants Calories first and Nutrients second. Besides most of the nutrient issues with animal food can be very much alleviated by feeding them their natural diet.
6. If the People aren’t likely to VOLUTARILY go All-Veg, All the Time, then what exactly are we discussing here? Compulsory Diet Regimes? Not to “progressive”.
Whew, long post, thanks for your indulgence.
And remember to have fun, this ride is supposed to be FUN,
-matti.
firefem. well, i saw ‘the world according to monsanto’ before and, while i dislike that corporation as much as the next person- that documentary was hugely disappointing.
it would be very easy to make a decent film disparaging monsanto- there is so much easily available information and first-hand accounts. but it is important to make it convincing, scientific, and using verifiable and trustworthy sources.
frankly i remember turning it off when the ‘proof’ they cited was from wikipedia (they actually showed the screen). not only that, they even insulted our intelligence by including in the shot the ‘citation needed’ icon that the wiki mods throw in after unverified references! is that proof?!?
seriously, i’m waiting for a more compelling critique of monsanto. it shouldn’t be too hard to make!
WHY PERMACULTURE??
The word permaculture, coined by Australians Bill Mollison and David Holmgren during the 1970s, is a portmanteau of permanent agriculture as well as permanent culture. Through a series of publications, Mollison, Holmgren and their associates documented an approach to designing human settlements, in particular the development of perennial agricultural systems that mimic the structure and interrelationship found in natural ecologies.
Permaculture design principles extend from the position that “The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children” (Mollison, 1990). The intent was that, by rapidly training individuals in a core set of design principles, those individuals could become designers of their own environments and able to build increasingly self-sufficient human settlements — ones that reduce society’s reliance on industrial systems of production and distribution that Mollison identified as fundamentally and systematically destroying the earth’s ecosystems.
While originating as an agro-ecological design theory, permaculture has developed a large international following of individuals who have received training through intensive two week long ‘permaculture design courses’. This ‘permaculture community’ continues to expand on the original teachings of Mollison and his associates, integrating a range of alternative cultural ideas, through a network of training, publications, permaculture gardens, and internet forums. In this way permaculture has become both a design system as well as a loosely defined philosophy or lifestyle ethic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
Mr. Obvious
Have you heard of something called COMPOST??? It involves taking your kitchen scraps, leaves, grass clippings etc.. and putting them in a big pile in just right amounts and VOILA! You get Rich COmpost. It is a natural process.
You can even do it with WORMS…
You don’t need to raise a ton of animals.
Everyone here needs to study Permaculture… so many of these “problems’ could go away….
I believe in order to solve the world’s food crisis, the only sensible solution would be to…
KILL THE RICH AND EAT THEM!
If you happen to be a vegetarian,then just kill the rich.
only HEMP is the solution and i like the idea of killing the rich, soylent green and actually we taste not like chicken, more like dog
but best is for crab bait like to soon to be many when revolution
get ready when signal comes know your targets
12 million mexicans with guns; love it
Klimt, while I appreciate your criticism and educating me on the video, I still think it’s a good expose which showed me the revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA. What I wish it had pointed out, however, is that both republican and democratic administrations took delight in appointing Monsanto lawyers to the FDA so it’s not a partisan issue and won’t go away if the democrats take over the white house in 2009.
Ha, ha, ha, Mr Obvious
What have I been telling you all along?
All you can think of is calling environmentally sustainable agriculture is “peasant agriculture”. Who is the peasant now? !!!
Ha, ha, ha….
Industrial chemical agriculuture has clearly failed, the bluff of the GM seed companies has been called. Their spin is a farse.
This means a great future for solving hunger and starvation with environmentally friendly sustaniable agriculture.
Time to change your system of growing veggies with pesticides.
SUSTAINABLE AGRCULTURE - THE QUIET REVOLUTION HAS STARTED
Sustainable highlights
* some 223,000 farmers in southern Brazil using green manures and cover crops of legumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of maize and wheat to 4-5 tons/ha;
* some 45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras have used regenerative technologies to triple maize yields to some 2-2.5 tons/ha and diversify their upland farms, which has led to local economic growth that has in turn encouraged re-migration back from the cities;
* more than 300,000 farmers in southern and western India farming in dryland conditions, and now using a range of water and soil management technologies, have tripled sorghum and millet yields to some 2-2.5 tons/hectare;
* some 200,000 farmers across Kenya who as part of various government and non-government soil and water conservation and sustainable agriculture programmes have more than doubled their maize yields to about 2.5 to 3.3 t/ha and substantially improved vegetable production through the dry seasons;
* 100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico who have adopted fully organic production methods, and yet increased yields by half;
* a million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam who have shifted to sustainable agriculture, where group-based farmer-field schools have enabled farmers to learn alternatives to pesticides whilst still increasing their yields by about 10%.
From: GMO’s not neededso why take the risk
http://www.gmwatch.org/print-archive2.asp?arcid=5501
Gee, we can’t seem to NOT turn the planet into one giant toilet! Seems we ain’t so “sapiens” after all. Let’s just keep ignoring the obvious, and it will all take care of itself. The planet will soon enough just give out. Too many ignorant beasts running around all insisting on “I want it all!” Gimme more meat, more “toys,” more kids … Any outside observer(s) would have to be laughing their asses off through their tears.
Parting words: Well you all have changed my mind. I have been a staunch supporter of Obama since the beginning due to his message of change. You have shown me where that kind of change could lead. While I detest Bush and could not have imagined voting for a republican up till now, I will vote for McCain. You all convinced my wife to make the the same choice weeks ago. Thank you for the education. All the time has definately been worthwhile. I’ll spread the message. Andy - you have been especially helpful.
this si an excellent article, Africa does not want GM crops:
Dr Tewolde Egzaibher of Ethiopia said “We strongly object to the image of the poor and the hungry from our countries being used to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us.”
Ta, taa, cherrio mr Obvious
I always like to see a sore loser depart. Hopefully, rBST, GM crops, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers will follow you out the door soon.
Go ahead and vote for McCain, back another loser, see if I care.
Sincerely
Andy
Does this mean you are finished stalking me across all the threads?
I just love it when all these people who have never lived on a farm, act like they know what their talking about! My father had a dairy farm, the manure fertilized the corn fields. The pasture was our wood lot, which heated two homes, & fed two families.
The problem is Agri. Business! Non-family farms. Eat locally, and in season! Can the extra from your garden.
Teach people in other countries, how to farm for their local. This idea that Other countries, have to provide food for other countries, is ridiculous! The cost is/should be outragous, not to mention the amount of perservatives it takes!
Is there a problem with teaching them NOT to have more kids then they can feed????
We’re suppose to stop eating meat so they can reproduce like rabbits?
This is stupid! This is the reason I am NOT a Liberal, I’m a Progressive! I believe in giving people a hand up, not hand OUTS! Teach them how to feed themselves!I’m in my late 50’s, we have been Giving these poor, hungry people for my whole life! (India, Africa, S.America, the commercials, give 50 cents a day, help a hungry child) When are they going to learn how to feed themselves??
AndieG
Yes, instead of handing out fish give a person a fishing rod and teach her to fish.
There is a link between number of children and education/wealth of the family.
Research shows if people are well educated and well off they naturally have fewer children.
If the money spent on war each day went into education and developing sustainable agriculture and building good infrastructure in poor countries, your problem of hunger and population growth would be solved in the Third World.
Read this article again, this is a turning point, this is all about sustainable agriculture and giving people the opportunity to feed themselves.
However, subsidied crops from First World countries dumped on the Third World push those small scale farmers that were profitable off the land and make the country dependent on aid and handouts.