EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Food Hero' says to Value Soil, Not Oil
Factory farms extending reach of global hunger crisis, she says.
GOSHEN - Vandana Shiva was on the fast track for a career as a nuclear physicist in the 1970s, working in an atomic research center in Bombay in her native India.
Vandana Shiva, the respected author and activist, says the world should be focused on food security instead of devoting limitless resources to oil and unsustainable energy production that threaten to devastate the planet and its people if left unchecked. But when her sister, a medical doctor,
pointed out Shiva's lack of understanding of nuclear hazards, she
planted a seed in Shiva's mind. That seed took root and eventually
caused Shiva to abandon her nuclear ambitions and dedicate her life to
what she calls "sciences that defend life."
In particular, she focuses on food security and sustainable farming to protect and promote the most elemental form of life: the seed.
In a speech titled after her latest book, "Soil Not Oil" (South End Press, 2008), Shiva, whom Time magazine calls an environmental hero, told a full house at the Goshen College Church-Chapel during a recent talk that the world should be focused on food security instead of devoting limitless resources to oil and unsustainable energy production that threaten to devastate the planet and its people if left unchecked. She explained parallels she sees between her past career and her present work.
"Feeding ourselves has become like warfare," she said, citing 1 billion people worldwide going hungry, recent riots in more than 30 countries because of increasing food prices and violent conflicts erupting when industrial farming companies displace traditional farmers in emerging countries like India. Additionally, Shiva mentioned literal wars fought today over oil and water, such as the conflict in Darfur that began with the effects of a drought.
Even the elements of war and food have become the same, she pointed out, with leftover chemicals from weapons - nitrogen, Agent Orange and DDT - being used to fertilize and treat crops. "Agriculture begins to look more and more like war against the earth," she said.
This "war" is destroying soil, wasting water and other resources, polluting the planet and devaluing and destroying human life and work. And for no more food.
"We've been sold a major myth on the grounds that the application of chemicals will improve yield. It's not true," she said. "It will kill soil."
Shiva pointed out industrial farming uses 10 times as much water as ecological farming. And industrial agriculture is inherently wasteful because it takes 10 kilocalories of energy to produce 1 kilocalorie of food, she explained. Industrial farming of animals is even less efficient and requires 100 kilocalories of energy to produce 1 kilocalorie of protein.
"If you're living on a planet of shrinking resources, it doesn't make sense," she said. Especially when this wasteful, polluted farming has replaced the perfect cycle of traditional farming that created no emissions, waste or conflict, she said.
Calling out industrial farming corporations, Shiva explained these companies are destroying biodiversity that is critical for sustainable farming. Instead, they focus on crops Shiva called "non-foods" and "commodities" such as corn and soybeans that are slipped into many food products. These commodities are not nourishing, she said.
"You can have more commodities, but less food," she explained, pointing out that 50 percent of what's grown is for animal feed or fuel for cars. Further, half of the 1 billion hungry people in the world are food producers.
Industrial agriculture companies' practice of modifying and patenting seeds goes against nature, she said. It stifles innovation because researchers won't share knowledge until it's patented; and a genetically modified seed is "not a true invention." Especially when a seed has been developed to terminate the embryo, the life inside itself, instead of propagating the way nature intended. A seed rendering itself sterile is a "war against creation," Shiva said. "If these seeds escape, you'll be terminating life."
One of the most devastating points of Shiva's talk was her explanation of a trend that started in India after farmers started engaging in industrial farming practices. Because those practices create debt, many farmers eventually lost their land and their livelihoods. This powerlessness led to 200,000 suicides by small farmers in one cotton-growing area of India, she said.
Her solutions? Through her organization Navdanya, Shiva has created a network of seed banks (www.navdanya.org/earth-democracy/seed-sovereignty) and organic producers (www.navdanya.org/organic-movement/organic-production) in India. Navdanya has trained more than 500,000 farmers in seed sovereignty, food sovereignty (www.navdanya.org/earth-democracy/food-sovereignty) and organic farming in the past two decades, according to her Web site.
Navdanya's seed-saving program has proved crucial with the upswing in violent weather conditions such as cyclones and tsunamis due to climate change. These storms moved salt water farther inland, which affected the soil of farms that had previously never dealt with this problem. Fortunately, Navdanya was able to distribute seeds that were resistant to saltwater to help farmers get back on their feet more quickly.
Another small but important solution in promoting soil over oil is appreciating food. "Celebrate food," she said. "Bring back the spirituality of food; recognize the sacredness of food."
Those concerned with food security solutions need to ask themselves, "Earth, how do I serve you?" she said.
And don't underestimate individual or small efforts, Shiva said. "The beauty of seeds is it multiplies. From one, you can make millions. All you need is patience."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
19 Comments so far
Show AllThis is a great article! Every school in America should have a school garden with both vegetables and flowers. It would be a learning experience and teaching aid is so many ways.
and every home as well.
I buy seed from Monsanto, but we need the diversity of choices embodied in Shiva's network of seed banks. Like so many things we humans do, our current farming practices are far from ideal. Many improvements have been made in the saving of soil and the lessening of wasteful fertilizer usage in recent years, yet much more is necessary. I will stand against this article's disparagement of corn. Corn and beans (such as pinto) are the basis of a nutritious diet. Tortillas and frijoles when accompanied by some fresh, tasty vegetables can be a celebratory meal.
Home Depot has a bargain on Agent Orange.
I do so love a bargain, but I'm not proud of it.
There has to be a better way than giving a multinational full control over seed stock. These GMO seeds are polluting our foods and our environment. Boycott GMO foods. This does not leave allot of choice left at your local supermarket.
There is a difference between corn as a grain in a diverse food based economy and corn as a gigantic commercial pesticide and herbicide laden monoculture to be fractionated into high fructose corn syrup, factory farm animal feed, fuel etc.
But why do you buy from Monsanto? They promote very unhealthy practices. This is a serious question. Isn't there more natural, organic, traditional corn seed available?
Joe
I buy from Monsanto for many reasons. Good yield, standability and drydown (I no longer own a grain dryer and don't want to). When I was younger, we farmed in a more traditional way. We typically tilled the soil about 6 times a year, not counting the actual planting. I now till the soil 0 times, other than my planter which tills a narrow path 1 1/2" deep. I think this is wonderful and extremely difficult to accomplish for an organic farmer. There are good and bad trade-offs with any farming system if you farm more than a couple of acres. My best accomplishments are keeping the carbon in the soil instead of the atmosphere and reducing erosion, while growing a lot of food, feed, fuel, and syrup. I do feel better about growing the food than the other 3.
Yeah, corn and beans can make a nutritious meal, but one kind of corn world wide? And the article mentions soy-bean, which human's use has made another plague. Go through the grocery story and read the labels; how is it society voted on making soy, refined wheat, and refined sugar the basis of it's diet?
"lessening of wasteful fertilizer", this sounds like Monsanto's mantra of "less toxic round-up" until the next series of tests show people still getting sick; but of course it buys another year of compliance and habit formation.
Of course if one's lively hood is based on some form of farming it's frightening to switch over to organic, or better yet, demeter-biodynamic, but depending how nimble you are (or if you're not a feel good Monsanto blogging mole) the change will be well worth it economically and health wise for your family...and for the rest of humanity. Research the transition stories out there, their are many successful ones.
One of Shiva's great victories has been in stopping Monsanto from trying to gain a patent on the form of rice her village had been growing for 1,500 years: they are predators of the worst kind: see Columbia drug wars. If you are indeed not a Monsanto mole, do yourself and everyone a favor and divest your interests from them.
Thanks for the reference to Demeter-biodynamic farming. I'd never heard of it before. I looked up some info on it and it sounds fantastic.
Not that I know so much about it, just that I've been fortunate enough to have met and live close to one of the nations foremost practitioners. One ratio he repeats is the fact it reduces the amount of manure compost(methane gas) by 50,000:1. At the "store" where some of his work is at there's a presentation of a series of pictures of one type of berry planted during different moon, planet and constellation cycles resulting in dramatic changes in coloration among other aspects. The relationship one builds between not only soil, but also plant and atmosphere, along with all the cycles...is what turns me on.
There's a documentary of a fellow working in India that's making the rounds. I tried to get his name, but if you add "movie" or such to your search you might find it...something about "saving the planet"(if we can be so pretentious).
The documentary is "How to Save the World". It's about Peter Proctor, a New Zealander who has been spreading the gospel of Biodynamics in India. Fascinating.
Keep the faith!
I'm sure that the corn Shiva is referring to is corn syrup--added to everything these days--that is responsible for much of our national obesity problem. Even Ketchup has it.
Beans as a non-nutritious element of human consumption is what is transformed and left over to add bulk or extenders to other foods.
I do agree that, if you eat corn from your own garden and add beans thereunto, you've got a complete protein as good for you (or better) than "grass fed" beef.
But that's not what our nuclear physicist is denigrating.
When I was growing up, a good corn yield was 30 -40 bushels per acre using good old open pollinated seed. Now the yields are from 200 up using modern hybrids with no need for poisonous insecticides. If people wish to grow their own organic food, that is a fine idea, but do not expect it to be used on a large scale, as it is very labor intensive, and poorer people could not afford to buy it. More countries are accepting the new seed every year, as the results speak for themselves. It is a waste of time to try to run commercial farmers business, as they will do what works for them in a free country.
There is much less soil erosion now than previously, as more residue and less compaction using newer methods are improving the soil structure. Land that was once blowing and washing away is now productive, thanks to modern farming practices. By the way,I am a farmer, not a seed or chemical salesman.
Of course botanists and horticulturists have been cross pollinating, hybridizing, for thousands of years; my wonder is: are the modern methods as effective as the "patience" rhythm method that Shiva extols in producing strong characterized strains? I've read(sorry for no citing) that the pest control through modern hybrids wear off in a few years(?). I also wonder about how many bushels one can optimally yield in terms of quality of individual units from an acre. Is this becoming like the calamity of the Super Cow phenomenon where they tried to produce, pardon the embellishment, all the milk for the people of Michigan from one cow? That resulted in the destruction of the concept and reality of what a cow is and made a lot of humans sick.
Also, considering the betterment, in terms of life aesthetics, humanity would gain by reconnecting(this time in human development with conscious awareness) to the rhythms and essences of nature, and the dire need for employment for billions of people around the world, is labor intensity such a bad occurrence? Surely there can be a way to reconcile the wages of farm labor with the labor of one worker million dollar year end bonus occurring at places like Goldman's that affords dignity to all sectors of workers; especially when one considers the wondrous unfoldment of humanities new relation/recognition of/with nature that is occurring, and the enhancement to this process that returning more people to the field for employment would bring(?).
Respect for nature must be taught from small on. Sowing the seed of 'truth' will help too.
It is no use throwing pearls before swine.
from ASIATIMESonline
Apr 14, 2010
THE BEAR'S LAIR
When labor becomes a commodity
By Martin Hutchinson
The extraordinary rise in commodity prices, at the beginning of a global cyclical upswing, is starting to reorder the pecking order of the world economy. Together with the advances made by China and India in the last decade, it is producing an entirely new world order, which many will find uncomfortable. In it, commodities, derided for decades as unimportant, have become scarce resources, to be guarded and managed with the utmost care. Conversely, human labor and skill, on the basis of which the glories of human civilization were built, is entering into a state of gigantic glut.
The present commodities boom is qualitatively different from those
of the past. In previous commodities booms, such as those of 1972-73 or 2006-08, the global economy was operating close to capacity, and indeed the boom was an important indicator that full capacity was about to be reached. The booms were accompanied by wage inflation, and in both cases resulted in price inflation, although in 2007-08 the price inflation was aborted by the financial crash before it could really get hold.
This time, a commodities boom is occurring while the global economy is still far from full capacity and unemployment worldwide remains high. There are two reasons for this.
First, a number of governments have engaged in irresponsible fiscal "stimulus", running budget deficits unprecedented in peacetime. This has tended to prop up demand for the kinds of commodities that are used in infrastructure, especially iron ore and copper - think for example of China's US$100 billion railroad building program.
Second, Chinese and Indian demand, which did no more than dip for a few months in 2008-09 before rebounding strongly, has driven up the global consumption of commodities to unprecedented levels. China's 1.3 billion citizens, each with less than one fourth of the consumption propensity of each of 300 million Americans or 400 million Europeans, nevertheless between them consume a lot more materials in their expenditure because their consumption mix is more oriented towards foods and physically bulky goods. With the Chinese automobile market now exceeding the US one in terms of units sold, it's not surprising that Chinese steel consumption has soared.
What has not yet been fully realized is that this change is likely to be more or less permanent. We had grown used in the last half century to a world in which only about 700 million of the world's 6.8 billion inhabitants enjoyed Western living standards, with automobiles and home appliances ubiquitous. In such a world, with extraction techniques ever improving, energy prices rose only slowly in real terms, while minerals prices actually declined. Now, with consumer demand growing at 6-10% annually among 2.5 billion consumers, the upward trend in energy and minerals usage has become much more rapid than we were used to.
We are not about to run out of either energy or minerals. Oil sands, viable at $40 per barrel, contain at least double the conventional reserves of petroleum, and most metals are even further from supply exhaustion, provided the price is high enough. However, there will be continual pressure on supplies, as there are not only limits to physical supply but also on how quickly output can be ramped up by bringing new supplies online. The gigantic Tupi oil fields in Brazil, for example, will come on stream only around 2013, six years after their discovery, while the lead time for tar sands oil production is at least as long, particularly given the agonizing environmental hoops new projects must jump through.
The excessive global monetary easing of the past decade has contributed to the secular change in commodities' position, but is not solely responsible for it. Easy money encouraged speculators and made the transition to emerging markets manufacturing happen more quickly than would have been natural. However, that transition, which has been the primary cause of the upsurge in Chinese and Indian commodities demand, was far more directly the result of the Internet and modern communications than of monetary policy alone.
Likewise, the current upwards blip in demand has been caused as much by fiscal as by monetary excess. Conversely, the inevitable tightening in global monetary policy, which in any case may only get serious 18-24 months from now, will not return commodities prices to their historic levels, even though the immediate bubble will burst. In 2020, if the world economy is in a healthy state, it will have much higher commodities prices, in terms of purchasing power, than in 2005.
The secular change in commodities prices has immense geopolitical consequences. The decline of Europe will accelerate, as most EU countries lack commodities wealth, have a surplus of labor and will incur vast debts in the attempt to prop up living standards that are no longer viable. Canada and Australia will prosper, becoming richer than the United States, as their commodities endowment is comparable with the US and their populations very much less. The decently run parts of Latin America and Africa will flourish, as their commodities wealth allows them to improve living standards. However, the majority of those continents will remain mired in socialist kleptocracy as their commodities wealth is siphoned off by corrupt politicians or wasted in hopelessly counterproductive welfare and subsidy schemes.
The corollary of the geopolitical growth of the commodities-rich will be the geopolitical decline of the commodities-impoverished. Japan's relative economic decline has been ubiquitously commented on, but one factor that has not been noted is that its demographic decline is entirely appropriate and indeed beneficial given its commodity-impoverished status.
Indeed, it is notable that the rich countries with very low fertility rates such as Japan, South Korea and Italy are also those with especially poor commodity endowments. An 18th century writer would have used this as a demonstration of the workings of Divine Providence; in secular 2010, I can only comment that it's a very odd coincidence indeed.
ARTICLE CONTINUED
===============================
However, it's not only the slow-growing rich countries that will suffer from the elevation of commodities prices: popular success stories such as China and India, with huge populations but only moderately large commodity endowments, will find their continued success much more difficult to achieve. That makes sense; if Chinese and Indian emergence into economic takeoff has warped the entire global economic fabric into a new shape, then it makes sense that such warping would exert a significant restraint upon those nations' economic growth.
Needless to say, the worst affected countries will be those poor countries with very large, dense populations and few commodity resources. Bangladesh certainly qualifies, but so do such countries as Kenya and Nigeria, traditionally thought to be well endowed with commodities but whose excessive population growth has outrun their commodities endowment, condemning them to continuing impoverishment and misery.
Overall, rapid economic development has thrust commodities from a position of glut into a position of relative scarcity. Conversely, the emergence of modern telecoms, the globalization of markets and the increasing wealth and education levels of billions in China, India and elsewhere, has transferred human labor, even skilled human labor, from a position of relative scarcity into a position of glut. That's not surprising - when the number of full participants in the global economy quadruples from 700 million to 3 billion over a period of less than 20 years, those participants are likely to face an over-supply problem. It's also not unusual - as Thomas Malthus would have told you in 1798, the periods when human labor is worth more than bare subsistence have historically been few and far between.
This glut does not merely apply to the unskilled; with India graduating 350,000 engineers per annum, it applies to all but the most highly skilled workers, and you can see the effects of it everywhere. Only a few highly cartelized occupations such as legal work, which can keep out foreign competition through regulation, or investment banking, which can design new financial products to increase its "rents" extracted from the system, are immune to the immiseration produced by global competition.
In Europe, rates of unemployment among those under 30 have been running around 20% for a decade. Contrary to media opinion, those young people's educations are not markedly inferior to their predecessors' and their adaptability to the demands of today's labor market is significantly greater. However, in societies where the costs of laying off experienced workers is great, both financially and in terms of public esteem, and wage and benefit rates are sticky, the new global competition from workers based in India and China is reflected in young workers' inability to move into steady employment.
High immigration worsens this problem, since it provides direct competitive pressure on European youth from well-qualified, cheaper labor within the system, as well as indirect competition from manufacturers abroad. Moderate immigration increases the skills diversification of a wealthy country without unduly impoverishing its people, but high immigration, whether skilled or unskilled, legal or illegal, impoverishes more than it diversifies.
The solution is not to erect trade barriers, artificially balkanizing the global market. That would reduce global wealth still further, impoverishing everybody in the long run. In any case with commodities now scarce the low-endowment "wealthy" countries no longer have the political or economic power to impose unilateral barriers effectively.
In summary, in today's world, commodities have become scarce and labor has become commoditized, unless fenced in by artificial restraints. With the global supply of commodities finite, this problem can only worsen if populations are allowed to continue growing. A world with 10 billion people, all able to compete on an equal basis in a globalized labor market and desiring commodity-intensive modern mechanical marvels, would be a world of ever-increasing scarcity and impoverishment, besides its adverse environmental effects.
Hence population reduction programs, aiming to reduce global population to a level at which labor once more becomes more valuable than commodities, should be given the highest priority at a global level. Otherwise, with the labor supply unlimited and the skills supply nearly so, and commodities supply relatively restricted, the only wealthy people will be those who own mines or oil wells.
Martin Hutchinson is the author of Great Conservatives (Academica Press, 2005) - details can be found at www.greatconservatives.com.
(Republished with permission from PrudentBear.com. Copyright 2005-10 David
W Tice & Associates.)