Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN: Eco-Farming Feeds the World
For years now, the most-asked question by detractors of the good food movement has been, “Can organic agriculture feed the world?” According to a new United Nations report, the answer is a big, fat yes.
The report, Agro-ecology and the Right to Food, released yesterday, reveals that small-scale sustainable farming would even double food production within five to 10 years in places where most hungry people on the planet live.
“We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations,” Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report, said in a press release. “The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”
The report suggests moving away from the overuse of oil in farming, a problem that is magnified in the face of rising prices due to unrest in the Middle East. The focus is instead on agroecology, or eco-farming. “Agroecology seeks to improve the sustainability of agroecosystems by mimicking nature instead of industry,” reads a section.
The report shows that these practices raise productivity significantly, reduce rural poverty, increase genetic diversity, improve nutrition in local populations, serve to build a resilient food system in the face of climate change, utilize fewer and more locally available resources, empower farmers and create jobs.
Of 57 impoverished countries surveyed, for example, yields had increased by an average of nearly 80 percent when farmers used methods such as placing weed-eating ducks in rice patties in Bangladesh or planting desmodium, which repels insects, in Kenyan cornfields. These practices were also cost effective, locally available and resulted from farmers working to pass on this knowledge to each other in their communities.
While the report admits that agroecology can be more labor-intensive because of the complexity of knowledge required, it shows that this is usually a short-term issue. The report underscores that agroecology creates more jobs over the long term answering critics who argue that creating more jobs in agriculture is counter-productive. “Creation of employment in rural areas in developing countries, where underemployment is currently massive, and demographic growth remains high,” states the report, “may constitute an advantage rather than a liability and may slow down rural-urban migration.”
Mark Bittman put it aptly in his column on the UN report at the New York Times, saying:
Agro-ecology and related methods are going to require resources too, but they’re more in the form of labor, both intellectual—much research remains to be done—and physical: the world will need more farmers, and quite possibly less mechanization.
This is not the first time such a report has declared more productive ways to feed the world other than leaving that important task to large corporations. In April 2008, the IAASTD report (the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development)–which was supported by the World Bank, the UN Food & Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, among others, with the participation of over 60 world governments and 400 experts–found that not only would industrial food production not be able to feed the world in the long term, but the practices being employed are actually increasing hunger, exhausting resources and exacerbating climate change. However, the U.S., under the Bush Administration, was one of the countries that decided not to endorse the findings.
Though agroecological farming has benefits for industrialized countries too, both reports focus largely on what to do in the least-developed nations on the globe. The status quo for U.S. foreign policy in agriculture up until now has been to leverage our political muscle to force countries to except our subsidized crops, even if it meant destroying local agricultural economies. (Former President Bill Clinton apologized for this policy last year, saying that it has “failed everywhere it’s been tried,” and “we should have continued to work to make sure [Haiti] was self-sufficient in agriculture.”) Will the Obama Administration be more receptive to these findings and could there be a change in the way we work with other countries in our support for agriculture?
Looking back at this (proudly pro-business) administration’s follies in hiring a pesticide lobbyist as our Agricultural Trade Representative, maintaining the USDA in the confusing role of promoting and regulating agriculture, and focusing on “improved seeds,” which usually means funding for the development of genetically modified crops for poor countries and you might be discouraged.
But De Schutter argues that real change to improve the livelihoods of rural farmers requires governments to be on board. “States and donors have a key role to play here,” he said. “Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don’t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.” In other words, feeding the worlds hungry should not be left to the market alone.
The report makes these specific recommendations for governing bodies:
- making reference to agroecology and sustainable agriculture in national strategies for the realization of the right to food and by including measures adopted in the agricultural sector in national adaptation plans of action (NAPAs) and in the list of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) adopted by countries in their efforts to mitigate climate change;
- reorienting public spending in agriculture by prioritizing the provision of public goods, such as extension services, rural infrastructures and agricultural research, and by building on the complementary strengths of seeds-and-breeds and agroecological methods, allocating resources to both, and exploring the synergies, such as linking fertilizer subsidies directly to agroecological investments on the farm (“subsidy to sustainability”);
- supporting decentralized participatory research and the dissemination of knowledge about the best sustainable agricultural practices by relying on existing farmers’ organizations and networks, and including schemes designed specifically for women;
- improving the ability of producers practicing sustainable agriculture to access markets, using instruments such as public procurement, credit, farmers’ markets, and creating a supportive trade and macroeconomic framework.
The report also gives recommendations for donors seeking to decrease hunger and improve rural livelihoods and for research organizations.
You can read the full report here [PDF]
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...
82 Comments so far
Show AllDoes every single organic farmer believe this dogma? My bet is that this is just another strawman. And frankly, it's also completely *irrelevant*, because the main arguments against GM stuff are NOT technological, they do NOT come from purists who want everything to be done in (what they think is) the cleanest possible way. It comes from very real and obvious *real life social consequences* of the overuse of technology. Which you regularly fail to address and go on rants against powerless people who might have an exagerated distrust of technology in agriculture (which might, btw, be exagerated, but certainly not irrational or mad or dumb). What the fuck does it matter if "organic dogma" "rejects" gene splicing? How on earth does that effect, you know, anything? You don't even hear about that opinion, so are you pretending it has a tangible effect on decision making?
ATOM: Thank you for your patience in derailing every one of this shill's comments.
And Paranoid Pess: When you ask for civility it reminds me of Obama asking us all to JUST get along, work together, and NOT look back. There are positions that require more passion than placidly polite protocols. For instance, a few people here should have a cold drink poured over their heads, and then some.
"For years now, the most-asked question by detractors of the good food movement has been, 'Can organic agriculture feed the world?'"
That question irritates me because it rests on a false assumption, namely that we have a choice. We don't. Organic farming WILL feed the world—what's left of it—simply because organic farming is the only practical sustainable form of agriculture. All unsustainable practices are brought to a halt sooner or later.
(l say "practical sustainable" because it is theoretically possible to put together a non-organic form of agriculture that uses only inputs that are technically renewable and therefore is technically sustainable. This would most probably be created and marketed as a form of perpetual high-tech agribusiness. I regard this result as unlikely.)
The choice we do have is whether we convert to organic agriculture ahead of time, or wait for non-organic agriculture to prove its unsustainability in a catastrophic fashion.
P.S. Another thing that irritates me is the use of "except" for "accept".
Add to this the utter hypocrisy of talking about "feeding the world" and, at the same time, wasting about 40% of corn produced in the US (mostly GM afaik) on fucking ethanol, with at best a 25% net energy ROI. How does that have anything to do with "feeding the world" and the rest of the ideas these people keep trying to hijack? Incredible. I mean, maybe I'm easy to piss off, but whether these people are paid shills or real farmers taken in by ideologies that serve their self-interest, they're really infuriating.
"Organic farming WILL feed the world—what's left of it—simply because organic farming is the only practical sustainable form of agriculture."
And you know this how? What do you measure, exactly?
You mean every organic farm in every kind of situation is "sustainable," and every conventional farm in every situation is "unsustainable"?
If "organic" farmers want "sustainability," why not try no-till methods that use herbicides and thus cut down on tilling, reducing soil loss and fuel use?
Why not use genetically modified plants that are resistant to diseases and therefore cut down on the use of sprays?
The real issue is that all agriculture is ultimately unsustainable, because it takes over land, draws down resources, and grows population. Unless population stops growing, all farming methods will fail.
Vasectomies slash the food problem considerably. Sometimes to nothing. I can't help but recommend them.
Finally, a serious post on our food problem.
The report makes an important positive contribution.
First, yes, agribusiness says the question is how to "feed the world," and this report answers that. But that's not the question to address food poverty. Food poverty is caused by poverty, and poverty mainly comes from overproduction of food and other agricultural products, not underproduction. I hope people will then see the danger here, in talking as if more production is the key to the solution.
Agribusiness wants more overproduction because it brings cheap prices. To stop overproduction means to plant less, which means fewer sales of agricultural inputs. That's the agribusiness input complex side of the issue. They also want to run farmers off of the land overseas, to be replaced by labor saving inputs like pesticides. They also want livestock removed from farms, so they can sell more fertilizer.
For the agribusiness output complex (buyers of grain, etc.) cheap farm prices mean higher profits, and the same for the CAFO complex, which, through below cost grains, under-prices grass-fed (more sustainable) farming methods.
The 1962 CED report, An Adaptive Program for Agriculture, called for eliminating one third of US farmers within five years, by lowering price floors. That was for one decade, then they wanted more and more farmers run off the land and they eventually won total elimination of price floors. Go to my zspace blog and "Farm Bill Primer" "Brad Wilson" for background on this, including links to the Food from Family Farms Act.
Ok, Via campesina supports these proposals, as in my blog "Via Campesina with NFFC". The Africa Group supports them. We must get the food movement to support the worlds poor farmers and peasants on these, the biggest issues.
Mark Bittman's New York Times article is on the wrong side of these issues in a huge way, as my rebuttal there documents.
Ok, why does food poverty come from overproduction and low farm prices instead of underproduction and high farm prices? We had overproduction and low prices for a quarter century, 1981-2006. Least Developed Countries, like many of the 57 countries in the report, are 70% rural, in need of fair trade, living wage farm prices, more than anything else, to stimulate their economies. (Of course, they also need to not be dominated on rich plantations, etc.) Ok 81-06 severe damage was done and that should be fixed. People were hungry. Then prices rose. Was the resulting larger food crisis caused ONLY by the higher prices for a few years? Or do you suppose it was really created by 25 years of dumping, including 8 of the 10 lowest farm price years in history 1998-2005? Ok, let's vote. How many of you recommend that the poor farmers in LDCs get the prices of 1998-2005 again as a solution to the food crisis?
The article here mentions: how we "force countries to except our subsidized crops, even if it meant destroying local agricultural economies." That would be true about the trade part of our policies, if you didn't say "subsidized crops."
Besides our trade policy, we also need to always make a profit on farm exports, so we don't dump cheap grain, and always keep reserve supplies and price ceilings. It's good that people know that subsidies are correlated with our policy failures. They do not "cause" cheap prices however, as I prove 4 ways in my YouTube videos, "Michael Pollan Rebutal 1" and "2". (I share with Pollan's values.) Anyone who called FOR subsidy caps or elimination in the last farm bill debate, but who did NOT call for price floors and ceilings and supply management and reserves, supported agribusiness in action, (by may have ranted against them in rhetoric). Most of the food/progressive movement, therefore, supported agribusiness in just this way. That probably includes Paula Crossfield. I'm trying to change that.
The recommendations in the report, as listed here, do not address any of the price problems, low or high price problems, that have been identified by NFFC, (National Family Farm Coalition) Via Campesina, and the Africa Group at WTO.
The solutions are good ones. But part of what's needed is for high grain prices, so that CAFO corporations do not invade poor countries to take livestock away from farmers. Without livestock, US farmers plow up pastures and hay fields, including fragile and highly erodible lands, to plant commodities, which then contribute to oversupply. So keeping grain prices up is important to eco-farming. It's also important to stop food poverty. See: FAO: The State of Food and Agriculture: Livestock in the Balance, p. 3: "Livestock contribute 40 percent of the global value of agricultural output and support the livelihoods and food security of almost a billion people." "Almost 80 percent of the world’s
undernourished people live in rural areas (UN Millennium Project, 2004) and most depend on agriculture, including livestock, for their livelihoods."
The new film "Pig Business" at YouTube, etc., is weak on these policy matters, but is good for showing how Smithfield hog factories invade foreign countries to take over their livestock. It's done with the help of cheap grains. (Note: The biggest entity in the Farm Subsidy Database got half a billion dollars over 15 years (divided by 9,000 co-op members = $62,000 in compensation for massive losses 1995-06). Smithfield got five times that amount over 9 years, 2.5 billion 1997-2005, but it's not in the database. Ditto for Tyson. See "Industrial Livestock Companies Gains from Low Feed Prices, 1997-2005. And that's small compared to Cargill and ADM, for multiple uses worldwide. (Note: The article just above is Tim Wise et al, Tufts University, GDAE. They mention the 1996 farm bill as a problem, but do not explain that at all, so it will almost always be misunderstood by the food movement. Again, it was not from the presence of farm subsidies, it was from the absence of price floors.)
Hey Paula,
I don't do twitter or cities, but am willing to follow you just about anywhere else. Are you attracted to older men with smaller brains and bank accounts?
Sincerely,
Buck
The elephant in the room in the USA is ZONING.
Did you know that it is against most zoning regulations in the USA to live in a greenhouse?
Did you know that you can poison the shit out of your lawn but rip out the grass and start a vegetable garden in your front yard and you've got trouble. In this respect, the USA is probably the most stilted and backward nation in the world.
Zoning regs are mostly stupid power games. No city should be allowed to tell people what they can grow in their yard. I can understand regs that keep you from growing certain agressive animals like pit bulls but crop regulation is wrong.
agelbert, great point. Lawns are eco nightmares. As you say, it's fine to hose them down with bio-cides and endlessly burn gas to mow, trim and edge, but no vegies allowed. I had this experience personally when asking a council woman what could be done with the front yard. The response , "Anything BUT vegetables." My trick was to mix vegies in with the flowers.
Another travesty is people who buy wooded acreage and doze the trees down.
Yes, I mix flowers and vegetables out here in the sticks. Also, many vegetables are incredibly beautiful on their own. Some of the hair-loon seed folks really miss out. Bright Lights Swiss Chard is one of many, for instance.
I'm a big believer in companion planting, a giant column of pluses and can't think of a negative. You couldn't be more right about the beauty of the food producing plants.
You should be careful about banging on those that use heirlooms. Most have proven to be beneficial for one reason or another, like drought, fungal, and or disease resistance, and most especially flavor. They are the real gene pool.
In Response to Christ on a Crust's comments above. I'll take only a few of them them and one at a time.
"Nice-sounding loony tunes. Let's all just pretend that agriculture can be ecological."
Well, I'm not sure of what your definition of ecological is. The idea that "ecology" is a set of conditions outside human influence of any kind has been widely discredited in ecology science. The reason for this is that "pristine nature untouched by man" doesn't really exist in this day and age (which has been proposed as a new geologic epoch, called the Anthropocene, where the influence of man, for the first time in the earth's history is on a planetary scale). Secondly, separating humanity from ecology would leave humans no place on Earth. We are a part of the Earth and a part of its Ecology in a social-ecological system (SES). You can look these concepts up in current scientific literature.
"Mimicking natural processes" is exactly what GMO technologies do. But let's exclude them!"
No, GMO technology does not "mimic natural processes". It brings together DNA from widely different sources, like tomatoes and fish, and creates modified organisms that could not and would not occur in nature. Reproduction is usually limited (designed to be sterile, seedless, etc) and the off-spring usually would not resemble the parents (or have the desired qualities). In the off-chance that these modified organisms would actually be formed through natural processes (not bred or manipulated by humans), a whole chain of evolution would have to occur. That has been bypassed in the GMO process. In traditional plant or animal breeding for improved agricultural products, this process is shortened and manipulated through breeding, not through breaking DNA and injecting foreign DNA into the host species.
"Agriculture is, BY DEFINITION, anti-ecology: it's the taking over of wild lands for human purposes. The natural ECOLOGICAL processes of "succession" must be continually interrupted so that the land does not revert back to its wild state."
Refer to my comment above. Like your definition of ecology, your definition of agriculture is lacking. Influence of humans in the ecosystem for agriculture can produce perfectly functional, diverse and species rich ecosystems. The state is not the same as, for example, one without agriculture, but agriculture is by no means "anti-ecology". Agri-business, however, tends to be "anti-ecology". It is based on the idea that natural resources are a subsidiary of the economy, rather than the other way around.
But, back to the GMO.
When considering agricultural technology, we should consider first the problem and then a solution. The issue with GMO has been turned around by those trying to sell us on the GMO idea. First, we have the technology, so let's try to sell it as being 1. good for environment 2. necessary to stop hunger 3. easier for farmers.
But, if we take each of those issues and look for the most cost-effective, resource sustainable and ethical solutions (yes, long term sustainability requires all 3 of these components) then GMO always falls far, far down on the list of possible responses. It's expensive, centralizes power and control of the food supply, threatens biodiversity and agricultural gene bank, and effectively destroys the social, economic and ecological fabric of small-scale agricultural systems and associated knowledge. If it turns out to be a bad idea (and it will) we are MUCH worse off than before.
We need to look for solutions to problems, not take real problems and turn them into marketing opportunities for a technology or company.
Best regards,
Master of Science, Agronomy.
>>"No, GMO technology does not "mimic natural processes". It brings together DNA from widely different sources, like tomatoes and fish, and creates modified organisms that could not and would not occur in nature."<<
"Master of Science, Agronomy," is a howler. Your username, Demeter, is a Steiner reference. This undercuts your credibility. Bury any cows' horns stuffed with manure to focus cosmic energy lately?
The "tomato-fish" thing is an urban legend. Look up "Pamela Dunsmuir." The protein never had the desired effect and the project never made it out of the lab. This is the way science works. You converts are persistent in your lies, aren't you?
By the way: brussels sprouts, carrots, and sweet corn do not exist in nature. They are genetically modified crops, period.
Read the following and weep for your ideology:
"Agrobacterium was known by 1907 to be an agricultural pest. It causes galls to form on fruit trees, walnuts, grapes, roses....'For a long time, perhaps millions of years, this common soil bacterium has been doing what molecular biologists are now striving to do. It has been inserting foreign genes into plants and getting the plants to express those genes in the form of proteins."
In case you didn't hear that "Master," let me repeat it: DNA from widely different sources have been brought together to create modified organisms that CAN and DO exist in nature. For millions of years.
Read "Mendel In the Kitchen."
Hi, Demeter. I went to the Demeter USA site and found the following recommendation from the Biodynamic Farm Standard:
http://demeter-usa.org/files/DemeterFarmStandardsm2.pdf
"Veterinary Treatment of Animals. Herbal, homeopathic or Anthroposophical treatments are to be given preference. Routine and preventative treatment with
allopathic medication is not allowed except in the case of vaccinations required by law. Legal withholding times are to be doubled in case of required vaccinations. It is strongly recommended to use homeopathic nosodes in place of vaccines whenever applicable. Nosodes are available for every livestock illness that can be vaccinated against: they will build the animal’s immune system rather than degrade it."
Would you care to explain this crap?
Great post Demeter...
I especially liked your observation that GMO is "expensive, centralizes power and control of the food supply, threatens biodiversity and agricultural gene bank, and effectively destroys the social, economic and ecological fabric of small-scale agricultural systems and associated knowledge."
Succinct, and I doubt that Crustie has a genuine answer, other than his canard that small-scale agriculture cannot sustain the huge human population.
My only agreement with that shill goes to the problem of overpopulation, as I cannot see how even existing populations can be sustained without resource depletion at several levels, esp. oil. I'm also worried about the atmospheric turbulence now associated with global warming, as it threatens the predictability that agriculture ultimately requires.
-30-
>>GMO is "expensive, centralizes power and control of the food supply, threatens biodiversity and agricultural gene bank, and effectively destroys the social, economic and ecological fabric of small-scale agricultural systems and associated knowledge."<<
Tell it to the plum farmers of Pennsylvania and the papyrus farmers of Hawai'i who almost lost their whole livelihoods to viruses until GM varieties came on line.
Tell it to the diabetics who survive on GMO insulin.
Tell it to all those who have been vaccinated with GMO vaccines.
Tell it to the hemophiliacs who get GM clotting factor and don't have to risk taking donated blood.
You are a corporate shill and a lying douchebag.
Christ on a Crust: gtfo with your strawmen, please. Noone's even talking about the organic dogma (I've never even heard of it). We're talking about the social implications of big money agribusiness and the long term pollution, waste and destruction it's causing. I'm guessing that this dogma you're talking about as if it was universal is just another (maybe more extreme) version of a generally more diverse set of opinions that you find convenient to bash - despite no one in the thread ever mentioning them or talking about them. That's just my guess, and it stems from the fact that not a single one of your posts actually addressed the real problems - which are not mainly technological but social - with GM farming. You don't address real issues, but seem to focus on some extreme (maybe) group of people that you decided was representative of people who would like to be more careful about GM stuff - despite, of course, not a single person here defending that way of thought. That's called a strawman argument, it's often considered a "fallacy", but it's not - it's a rhetorical trick used by demagogues to misdirect and destroy substantive conversations and to avoid arguments.
My take on this - and it's a bit patronising to the people we're talking about, sorry about that - is that there are people who see that something's wrong with chemical based and especially GM farming, are searching for alternatives, but maybe haven't come to the right answer. The reason for that of course is in a large part the misinformation and miseducation campaign that you seem to be a (voluntary or paid, I don't really give a shit) part of. There is no discussion on this issue because the people you're speaking for dominate all the forums the public could use to learn about it. This makes it pretty fucking easy to come in and single out a maybe more extreme way of thought as a representative of all the people who disagree with the corporate mainstream, build strawmen around these issues and attack them. This is almost always what happens, in every serious issue. It's like the 9/11 truther stuff - you can talk about that, and it gets some publicity, but not the real issues. Or pretending all Muslims are terrorists. This list is long.
Another thing you try to do is pose as the representative of the only possible scientific view. That is bullshit. Technology is not science. It's based on science, but it embodies human decisions and structures - it's determined socially to quite a large degree. It represents choices and strategies. The social choices GM stuff represent now, and this is the important thing, this is what everyone's talking about in this thread, not fucking homeopathy, are concentration, monopolisation, centralisation of agricultural decisive and productive power to unaccountable, undemocratic centres of power - that, btw, often act completely irrationally and unscientifically. Unless you consider the patenting of life, which the USPTA itself was completely against, scientific; or you consider the processes the FDA uses to certify GM stuff "scientific". Clearly they're nowhere near that.
These are of course not simple and unimportant theoretical principles that are easy to bash, like homeopathy, which actually don't really have any significant effect on overall production - these are high level decisions that *could* point out failures and problems with GM stuff. The important and significant issues do not include organic farmers's mistakes. They include:
- GM food labeling
- IPR issues
- loan and subsidy structures
- overuse of chemicals/antibiotics
- genetic "contamination"
- effects on biodiversity
- effects on land degradation and on water
- unscientific and half-assed deregulation of gm foods
These are some of the actual, well recognisable issues. Looking at these would not be anti-science (it would be science, in fact). There also needs to be democratic discussion on these issues, although of course most people wouldn't really support the corporate point of view on at least some of these issues, probably most. So yeah, please, fuck off and stop pretending that anyone who thinks there might be issues with the focus on and preference for GM technology compared to more traditional forms and organic forms of farming is an anti-science nut.
First you try to change the subject: "Well, we're really not talking about GM products per se, we're talking about the social implications of big business..." etc. Please feel free to start another thread if that's what you want to talk about.
Then you go right ahead and try to pass, like kidney stones, a few of the widely-debunked canards about GM products:
"- overuse of chemicals/antibiotics
- genetic "contamination"
- effects on biodiversity
- effects on land degradation and on water"
GM crops are designed to cut down on the use of "chemicals," (which is yet another absurd use of a generalized term because EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. You probably meant "pesticides." Develop GM varieties of resistant plants and you can cut down pesticides use.)
"Contamination" is a buzzword, chosen to elicit an emotional response. Do you mean "gene flow"? This has been occurring for billions of years. "Contamination" is also begging the question: it assumes there is a such thing as genetic purity. The "contamination" argument is more Old Testament than scientific.
"Effects on biodiversity." It is the loss of land to agriculture that effects biodiversity. By helping to produce more food on less land, GM crops actually permit more land to be turned back to the wild and thus to INCREASE biodiversity.
Same with "land degradation and water." GM crops could be developed to grow on land that has high salt content and/or in drought-plagued areas.
Organic acolytes don't want to hear the idea that ALL farming techniques have a place in our future. For them it's either "organic" or nothing.
"First you try to change the subject: "Well, we're really not talking about GM products per se, we're talking about the social implications of big business..." etc. Please feel free to start another thread if that's what you want to talk about."
No. This is the original topic. I was not trying to change it, you were, through your constant strawman arguments, and when people don't fall into your bullshit cycle, you claim they're derailing the thread. The question is whether organic/eco/sustainable whatever farming (which includes basically everything but industrialised, monoculture and chemical based farming) can feed the world. That's the article's title. We are not and never were talking about GM products "per se". We are also not talking about the technology itself, but the way the technology is used in the real world and its large scale effects, which is the decisive factor. The article talks about "overuse of oil in farming", which is not a technological, but social issue. The only person who derails the conversation is you.
To repeat the main issue: it's industrial type farming that tries to eliminate all alternatives, and it's extremely hypocritical to claim that "all methods should be used" while the industry does everything to eliminate alternatives. You're basically just telling people not to make a fuss and be civilised and friendly while you're burning down their house. Nice stuff.
"Then you go right ahead and try to pass, like kidney stones, a few of the widely-debunked canards about GM products:
- overuse of chemicals/antibiotics
- genetic "contamination"
- effects on biodiversity
- effects on land degradation and on water
GM crops are designed to cut down on the use of "chemicals," (which is yet another absurd use of a generalized term because EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. You probably meant "pesticides." Develop GM varieties of resistant plants and you can cut down pesticides use.)"
I think people use the word "chemicals" because they want to include fertilisers etc, not just pesticides. Everyone uses this word, but maybe there's a better one, so please share. As for these issues being widely debunked, what the hell. You're just bullshiting. Agriculture in general does not need to create green deserts, for example. It does not unavoidably need to lead to the amount of water and land degradation that it does. Superweeds and antibiotic resistant bacteria are pretty big issues that stem from overuse of chemicals. And "contamination" may or may not be a real problem in scientific terms, but afaik it can become a pretty real problem for real life for organic farmers or for people whose fields just happen to somehow start growing Roundup resistant crops and then get sued by Monsanto.
The arguments that say "GM crops could be developed to do this or that", well, I can kind of agree with those. That would be nice. The problem is, most of the time they are not developed for those reasons. They are overwhelmingly developed to facilitate strategic corporate needs through offering some advantage to the producer (most often not even a proper farmer in any traditional sense), mainly focused on decreasing the need for human labour which leads to centralisation of production and production technology. That's what's actually happening. And if people see that biotech is mostly used to undermine traditional smaller-scale farming, they'll be sceptical, you know. It's a pretty rational reaction. Maybe it's an overreaction, but there's certainly a lot of reason for it.
"Organic acolytes don't want to hear the idea that ALL farming techniques have a place in our future. For them it's either "organic" or nothing."
Even if this was true, would there be no reason for this kind of reaction? Isn't big agribusiness completely against small scale/organic/eco etc farming? I mean, hasn't GM production caused lots of harm to non-big business farmers already? Wouldn't it be understandable if people were wary? But seriously, it's the other way around, as I've said a couple of times already, and that's a fact that you don't even seem to come close to discussing. You're whining about a (sadly) relatively small group of people that seem to have less and less power on decisionmaking anyway and pretending they're the people who're stopping the unavoidable positive progress of the world. That's some thick skin you have.
ATOM:
APPLAUSE and standing ovation... great work!
Christ... writes that he went to a page on biodynamic farming: "Would you care to explain this crap?"
No, actually, I wouldn't. I think the biodynamic folks can speak for themselves. I would rather stay on topic. You, dear writer, are desperate for anything to grasp onto in the face of actual educated opposition and are trying to obsfuscate issues with your innanities. Couldn't discredit the facts so now try to discrredit the writer. Sorry, won't work.
But, the biodynamics: Neither the writer of the article nor the writer of the UN report (nor myself, for that matter) are discussing homeopathy or biodynamic farming. Rather, the UN report is about supporting agriculture based on good land stewardship and integrated practices. My contribution was a refutation of your outdated/uneducated view on ecology, agriculture and agro-ecology.
BTW: I think the Greeks had ownership of "Demeter" way before Steiner came along. Goddess of harvest and other agricultural endeavors is a perfectly fitting handle for this thread. It is childishly simple to provoke you into revealing your biases. The only one talking about biodynamics and/or homeopathy here so far is you.
Also, when the UN IAASTD report on agriculture and technology was being conducted, the biotech industry pulled out of it because the scientists conducting the report refused to let them push through their unproven claims that biotechnology would .i.e. solve the food and environmental crises of the present and future. Pesky UN wasn't playing ball. And now they come out with still ANOTHER report with similar findings! Arggh.
Must be driving dear Christ on a Crust crazy....
Excellent comment!
Christ on a Crusty GMO Cracker is a shill. And what gives me a sense of satisfaction is that so many people are calling out the deceitful tactics of this fraudulent person. You, Atomsk, and Brad Smith have done a wonderful job keeping the message of this excellent article clear from being muddled up by the con man. Thank you!
Thanks, but you shouldn't compare Demeter and Brad Smith to me, they're way more knowledgeable and eloquent! What pisses me off in general is the destruction of debate on these incredibly important issues, and this is why I can't stop posting (please tell me off if I'm posting too much), but in terms of substantive discussion, my posts aren't worth much (or anything) compared to theirs. I especially like Brad Smith's posts (probably mainly because he quotes Mumford hehehe).
"What pisses me off in general is the destruction of debate on these incredibly important issues, and this is why I can't stop posting."
-- I agree. The general destruction of the debate is exactly why Christ on a Crusty GMO Cracker is here. This person is not here to debate, but to distract and muddle the debate.
"but in terms of substantive discussion, my posts aren't worth much (or anything) compared to theirs/."
I disagree. You have brought many good things to this discussion. Thank you!
I'm tiring of CoaC, his dated rhetoric and his rudeness, so maybe this will dispell all the fumes:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsFacingMeltdown.php
ISIS has long been on Quackwatch's list of Questionable Organizations:
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html
You are a corporate shill, and a lying douche bag.
And what is Quackwatch? Monsanto site perhaps?
Eric A. Blair, Atomsk, Ole Man River, Brad Smith and others: Thanks for your contributions. The discussion has been enhanced by the multiple perspectives you have brought to it. Especially, I am thankful to see that so many of you understand agriculture and food security as a social-ecological issue and one with a very complicated and muddled history.
I've no doubt that burned toast thought this was an easy forum for his disinformation campaign. It was a typical effort to sprinkle facts and fiction together and sound so authoritative that people without deep knowledge would feel confused or intimidated in the face of his confrontation (not argumentation, because there was no substance to his arguments). Efforts to derail the discussion with personal attacks or side issues (i.e. to get me to take a position on homeopathy or biodynamic farming or to convolute GMO discussions) are the usual fall-back tactics. I echo Eric above in congratulating those on the thread for not falling for that populist trick.
For those who are less familiar with agricultural issues, I will point out that the "GMO solutions" to agricultural issues mentioned by burned crust are problems caused by massive abuse of the environment through monocropping, introduced species, use of single cultivars (reduction of gene pool) and similar problems of industrialized agriculture.
Integrated farming would (and does) provide other solutions to these problems. These solutions include conventional plant breeding for resistence and diversity, using rotational and intercropping, and many other land stewardship strategies. More information on these types of methods around the world at, for example, The World Agroforestry Centre (affiliated with UN and CGIAR).
If there's anyone using shrill, hysterical language it's those who want to create a panic that the only way to FEED PEOPLE (panic panic) is to exploit beyond repair our dwindling natural resources. This of, course, while lining pockets of certain corporations. Historically, when these great plans fail it's the citizenry via taxes, ecological devastation, and associated hardship that foot the bill.
Someone above wondered about the population question. Here's one view: simply pushing back the limit of the amount of food we can produce will not solve the problem. We will eventually hit that limit and have the same crisis again. Consumption needs to slow down and population needs to stabilize. Degrowth for the wealthier economies and growth for those who do not have enough is the way forward to a just and sustainable world. The ultimate goal should not be "growth" but a steady, sustainable state. Check out Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) for more info on the economics of that.
All the best to you all and your endeavours for safe, sane and fair food!