SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Food systems are at a crossroads. Profound transformation is needed." (Photo: Markus Winkler on Unsplash)
Recently, the High Level Panel of Experts of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released its much-anticipated report on agroecology. The report signals the continuing shift in emphasis in the UN agency's approach to agricultural development. As outgoing FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva has indicated, "We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food. We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food, and also preserve the environment. Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process."
It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports "diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base."
The commissioned report, "Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition." Two years in the making, the report makes clear the urgent need for change. "Food systems are at a crossroads. Profound transformation is needed," the summary begins. It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports "diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base."
It is not surprising, of course, that those with financial interests in the current input-intensive systems are responding to growing calls for agroecology with attacks on its efficacy as a systematic approach that can sustainably feed a growing population. What is surprising is that such responses are so ill-informed about the scientific innovations agroecology offers to small-scale farmers who are being so poorly served by "green revolution" approaches.
One recent article from a researcher associated with a pro-biotechnology institute in Uganda was downright dismissive, equating agroecology with "traditional agriculture," a step backwards toward the low-productivity practices that prevail today. "The practices that agroecology promotes are not qualitatively different from those currently in widespread use among smallholder farmers in Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa more broadly," writes Nassib Mugwanya of the Uganda Biosciences Research Center. "I have come to conclude that agroecology is a dead end for Africa, for the rather obvious reason that most African agriculture already follows its principles."
Nothing could be further from the truth. As the new expert report shows, and as countless ecological scientists around the world can attest, agroecology brings much-needed innovations to prevailing smallholder practices. With a long track record of achievements in widely varying environments, the approach has been shown to improve soil fertility, increase crop and diet diversity, raise total food productivity, improve resilience to climate change, and increase farmers' food and income security while decreasing their dependence on costly inputs.
The failing policies of the present
The predominant input-intensive approach to agricultural development can hardly claim such successes, which is precisely why international institutions are actively seeking alternatives. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is the poster child for the promotion of input-intensive agriculture in Africa. At its outset 13 years ago, AGRA and its main sponsor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set the goals of doubling the productivity and incomes of 30 million smallholder households on the continent.
There is no evidence that approach will come anywhere near meeting those worthy objectives, even with many African governments spending large portions of their agricultural budgets to subsidize the purchase of green revolution inputs of commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizers. National-level data, summarized in the conclusion to my book Eating Tomorrow, attests to this failure:
A recent article in the journal Food Policy surveyed the evidence from seven countries with input subsidy programs and found little evidence of sustained--or sustainable--success. "The empirical record is increasingly clear that improved seed and fertilizer are not sufficient to achieve profitable, productive, and sustainable farming systems in most parts of Africa," wrote the authors in the conclusion.
Agroecology: Solving farmers' problems
Branding agroecology as a backward-looking, do-nothing approach to traditional agriculture is a defensive response to the failures of Green Revolution practices. In fact, agroecological sciences offer just the kinds of innovations small-scale farmers need to increase soil fertility, raise productivity, improve food and nutrition security, and build climate resilience
Do these innovations sound backward looking to you?
These innovations and many others are explored in depth in the new U.N. report, the full version of which will be available in English in mid-July, other FAO languages in September. Those advocates of industrial agriculture would do well to read it closely so they can update their understanding of the sustainable innovations agroecological sciences offer to small-scale farmers, most of whom have seen no improvements in their farms, incomes, or food security using Green Revolution approaches. Many farmers have concluded that the Green Revolution, not agroecology, is a dead end for Africa.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Recently, the High Level Panel of Experts of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released its much-anticipated report on agroecology. The report signals the continuing shift in emphasis in the UN agency's approach to agricultural development. As outgoing FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva has indicated, "We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food. We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food, and also preserve the environment. Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process."
It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports "diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base."
The commissioned report, "Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition." Two years in the making, the report makes clear the urgent need for change. "Food systems are at a crossroads. Profound transformation is needed," the summary begins. It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports "diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base."
It is not surprising, of course, that those with financial interests in the current input-intensive systems are responding to growing calls for agroecology with attacks on its efficacy as a systematic approach that can sustainably feed a growing population. What is surprising is that such responses are so ill-informed about the scientific innovations agroecology offers to small-scale farmers who are being so poorly served by "green revolution" approaches.
One recent article from a researcher associated with a pro-biotechnology institute in Uganda was downright dismissive, equating agroecology with "traditional agriculture," a step backwards toward the low-productivity practices that prevail today. "The practices that agroecology promotes are not qualitatively different from those currently in widespread use among smallholder farmers in Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa more broadly," writes Nassib Mugwanya of the Uganda Biosciences Research Center. "I have come to conclude that agroecology is a dead end for Africa, for the rather obvious reason that most African agriculture already follows its principles."
Nothing could be further from the truth. As the new expert report shows, and as countless ecological scientists around the world can attest, agroecology brings much-needed innovations to prevailing smallholder practices. With a long track record of achievements in widely varying environments, the approach has been shown to improve soil fertility, increase crop and diet diversity, raise total food productivity, improve resilience to climate change, and increase farmers' food and income security while decreasing their dependence on costly inputs.
The failing policies of the present
The predominant input-intensive approach to agricultural development can hardly claim such successes, which is precisely why international institutions are actively seeking alternatives. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is the poster child for the promotion of input-intensive agriculture in Africa. At its outset 13 years ago, AGRA and its main sponsor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set the goals of doubling the productivity and incomes of 30 million smallholder households on the continent.
There is no evidence that approach will come anywhere near meeting those worthy objectives, even with many African governments spending large portions of their agricultural budgets to subsidize the purchase of green revolution inputs of commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizers. National-level data, summarized in the conclusion to my book Eating Tomorrow, attests to this failure:
A recent article in the journal Food Policy surveyed the evidence from seven countries with input subsidy programs and found little evidence of sustained--or sustainable--success. "The empirical record is increasingly clear that improved seed and fertilizer are not sufficient to achieve profitable, productive, and sustainable farming systems in most parts of Africa," wrote the authors in the conclusion.
Agroecology: Solving farmers' problems
Branding agroecology as a backward-looking, do-nothing approach to traditional agriculture is a defensive response to the failures of Green Revolution practices. In fact, agroecological sciences offer just the kinds of innovations small-scale farmers need to increase soil fertility, raise productivity, improve food and nutrition security, and build climate resilience
Do these innovations sound backward looking to you?
These innovations and many others are explored in depth in the new U.N. report, the full version of which will be available in English in mid-July, other FAO languages in September. Those advocates of industrial agriculture would do well to read it closely so they can update their understanding of the sustainable innovations agroecological sciences offer to small-scale farmers, most of whom have seen no improvements in their farms, incomes, or food security using Green Revolution approaches. Many farmers have concluded that the Green Revolution, not agroecology, is a dead end for Africa.
Recently, the High Level Panel of Experts of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released its much-anticipated report on agroecology. The report signals the continuing shift in emphasis in the UN agency's approach to agricultural development. As outgoing FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva has indicated, "We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food. We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food, and also preserve the environment. Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process."
It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports "diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base."
The commissioned report, "Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition." Two years in the making, the report makes clear the urgent need for change. "Food systems are at a crossroads. Profound transformation is needed," the summary begins. It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports "diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base."
It is not surprising, of course, that those with financial interests in the current input-intensive systems are responding to growing calls for agroecology with attacks on its efficacy as a systematic approach that can sustainably feed a growing population. What is surprising is that such responses are so ill-informed about the scientific innovations agroecology offers to small-scale farmers who are being so poorly served by "green revolution" approaches.
One recent article from a researcher associated with a pro-biotechnology institute in Uganda was downright dismissive, equating agroecology with "traditional agriculture," a step backwards toward the low-productivity practices that prevail today. "The practices that agroecology promotes are not qualitatively different from those currently in widespread use among smallholder farmers in Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa more broadly," writes Nassib Mugwanya of the Uganda Biosciences Research Center. "I have come to conclude that agroecology is a dead end for Africa, for the rather obvious reason that most African agriculture already follows its principles."
Nothing could be further from the truth. As the new expert report shows, and as countless ecological scientists around the world can attest, agroecology brings much-needed innovations to prevailing smallholder practices. With a long track record of achievements in widely varying environments, the approach has been shown to improve soil fertility, increase crop and diet diversity, raise total food productivity, improve resilience to climate change, and increase farmers' food and income security while decreasing their dependence on costly inputs.
The failing policies of the present
The predominant input-intensive approach to agricultural development can hardly claim such successes, which is precisely why international institutions are actively seeking alternatives. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is the poster child for the promotion of input-intensive agriculture in Africa. At its outset 13 years ago, AGRA and its main sponsor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set the goals of doubling the productivity and incomes of 30 million smallholder households on the continent.
There is no evidence that approach will come anywhere near meeting those worthy objectives, even with many African governments spending large portions of their agricultural budgets to subsidize the purchase of green revolution inputs of commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizers. National-level data, summarized in the conclusion to my book Eating Tomorrow, attests to this failure:
A recent article in the journal Food Policy surveyed the evidence from seven countries with input subsidy programs and found little evidence of sustained--or sustainable--success. "The empirical record is increasingly clear that improved seed and fertilizer are not sufficient to achieve profitable, productive, and sustainable farming systems in most parts of Africa," wrote the authors in the conclusion.
Agroecology: Solving farmers' problems
Branding agroecology as a backward-looking, do-nothing approach to traditional agriculture is a defensive response to the failures of Green Revolution practices. In fact, agroecological sciences offer just the kinds of innovations small-scale farmers need to increase soil fertility, raise productivity, improve food and nutrition security, and build climate resilience
Do these innovations sound backward looking to you?
These innovations and many others are explored in depth in the new U.N. report, the full version of which will be available in English in mid-July, other FAO languages in September. Those advocates of industrial agriculture would do well to read it closely so they can update their understanding of the sustainable innovations agroecological sciences offer to small-scale farmers, most of whom have seen no improvements in their farms, incomes, or food security using Green Revolution approaches. Many farmers have concluded that the Green Revolution, not agroecology, is a dead end for Africa.
"If implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the Associated Press said.
Israel has reportedly discussed pushing the Palestinian population of Gaza to another war zone in South Sudan.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Israeli leaders had been engaged in talks with the African nation and that an Israeli delegation would soon visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up "makeshift camps" for Palestinians to be herded into.
"It's unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the AP said.
Like Gaza, South Sudan is in the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis caused by an ongoing violence and instability. In June, Human Rights Watch reported that more than half of South Sudan's population, 7.7 million people, faced acute food insecurity. The nation is also home to one of the world's largest refugee crises, with more than 2 million people internally displaced.
On Wednesday, the South Sudanese foreign ministry said it "firmly refutes" the reports that it discussed the transfer of Palestinians with Israel, adding that they are "baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy."
However, six sources that spoke to the AP—including the founder of a U.S.-based lobbying firm and the leader of a South Sudanese civil society group, as well as four who maintained anonymity—said the government briefed them on the talks.
Sharren Haskel, Israel's deputy foreign minister, also arrived in South Sudan on Tuesday to hold a series of talks with the president and other government officials.
While the content of these talks is unclear for the moment, the Israeli government is quite open about its goal of seeking the permanent transfer of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to other countries.
In addition to South Sudan, it has been reported that Israeli officials have also approached Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway state of Somaliland, all of which have suffered from chronic war, poverty, and instability.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with the Israeli TV station i24 that "the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there."
Though Netanyahu has described this as "voluntary migration," Israeli officials have in the past indicated that their goal is to make conditions in Gaza so intolerable that its people see no choice but to leave.
Finance minister and war cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich, who has openly discussed the objective of forcing 2 million Palestinians out to make way for Israeli settlers, said in May: "Within a few months, we will be able to declare that we have won. Gaza will be totally destroyed."
Speaking of its people, he said: "They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places."
Contrary to Netanyahu's assertion, international bodies, governments, and human rights groups have denounced the so-called "voluntary migration" plan as a policy of forcible transfer that is illegal under international law.
"To impose inhumane conditions of life to push Palestinians out of Gaza would amount to the war crime of unlawful transfer or deportation," said Amnesty International in May.
Israeli human rights organizations, led by the group Gisha, explained in June in a letter to Israel's Defense Minister, Israel Katz, that there is no such thing as "voluntary migration" under the circumstances that the Israeli war campaign has imposed.
"Genuine 'consent' under these conditions simply does not exist," the groups said. "Therefore, the decision in question constitutes explicit planning for mass transfer of civilians and ethnic cleansing, while violating international law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The plan to permanently remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip has received the backing of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to turn the strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
The U.S. State Department currently advises travelers not to visit Sudan or Somaliland due to the risk of armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. However, the United States has reportedly been involved in talks pushing these countries to take in the Palestinians forced out by Israel.
After Israel announced its plans to fully "conquer" Gaza, U.N. official Miroslav Jenča said during an emergency Security Council session on Sunday that the occupation push is "yet another dangerous escalation of the conflict."
"If these plans are implemented," he said, "they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction—compounding the unbearable suffering of the population."
Under Kennedy's leadership, Defend Public Health charged, the federal government "is now leading the spread of misinformation."
A grassroots public health organization on Wednesday took a preemptive hatchet to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s upcoming "Make America Health Again" report, whose release was delayed this week.
Health advocacy organization Defend Public Health said that it felt comfortable trashing the yet-to-be-released Kennedy report given that his previous report released earlier this year "fundamentally mischaracterized or ignored key issues in U.S. public health."
Instead, the group decided to release its own plan called "Improving the Health of Americans Together," which includes measures to ensure food safety, to improve Americans' ability to find times to exercise, and to ensure access to vaccines. The report also promotes expanding access to healthcare while taking a shot at the massive budget package passed by Republicans last month that cut an estimated $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade.
"In 2023, 28% of Americans had to delay or forgo medical or dental care due to cost, a number that will increase thanks to the recent reconciliation bill," the organization said. "Health coverage should be expanded, not reduced, and the U.S. should move toward a system that covers all."
Defend Public Health's report also directly condemns Kennedy's leadership as head of the Health and Human Services Department (HHS), as it labels him "an entirely destructive force and a major source of information" who "must be removed from office." Under Kennedy's leadership, Defend Public Health charged, the federal government "is now leading the spread of misinformation."
Elizabeth Jacobs, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona and a founding member of Defend Public Health, explained her organization's rationale for getting out in front of Kennedy's report.
"Public health can't wait, so we felt it was important not to let RFK Jr. set an agenda based on distortions and distractions," she said. "Tens of thousands of scientists, healthcare providers, and public health practitioners would love to be part of a real agenda to improve the health of Americans, but RFK Jr. keeps showing he has no clue how to do it."
She then added that "you can't build a public health agenda on pseudoscience while ignoring fundamental problems like poverty and other social determinants of health" and said her organization has "put together strategies that could truly help children and adults stay healthier, and that's the conversation Americans need to be having, not Kennedy's fake 'MAHA.'"
Kennedy has been drawing the ire of public health experts since his confirmation as HHS secretary. The Washington Post reported this week that Kennedy angered employees of the Centers for Disease Control after he continued to criticize their response to the novel coronavirus pandemic even after a gunman opened fire on the agency's headquarters late last week.
Kennedy also got into a spat recently with international health experts. According to Reuters, Kennedy recently demanded the retraction of a Danish study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal that found no link between children's exposure to aluminum in vaccines and incidence of neurodevelopment disorders such as autism.
"We refuse to be silent while our colleagues are starved and shot by Israel," whose "ongoing genocide and deepening siege have effectively destroyed the entire health system in Gaza."
More than 120 doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals from around the world who have worked in Gaza since late 2023 published a letter on Wednesday expressing solidarity with their Palestinian colleagues, who "continue to endure unimaginable violence" amid Israel's 22-month U.S.-backed annihilation and siege.
"Today, we raise our voices again in full solidarity with our Palestinian colleagues in Gaza," the international medical workers wrote in the open letter first obtained by Zeteo and also published by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, which along with B'Tselem last month became the first two Israeli advocacy groups to accuse their country of genocide.
"We refuse to be silent while our colleagues are starved and shot by Israel," declared the letter's signers, who "have witnessed firsthand the scale and severity of suffering" inflicted by Israeli bombs, bullets, and blockade.
The letter continues: "Israel's ongoing genocide and deepening siege have effectively destroyed the entire health system in Gaza. The few remaining partially functioning hospitals are held together by the determination and commitment of Palestinian doctors and nurses, all of whom continue to care for patients despite the constant risk of targeting, and now starvation too."
In a historic letter, 123 doctors from around the world who've served in Gaza demand international action to stop the horrors their Palestinian colleagues & Palestinian people face.“We reject the violence of silence and supposed neutrality while our colleagues are starved and shot at by Israel.”
[image or embed]
— Prem Thakker ツ (@premthakker.bsky.social) August 13, 2025 at 8:14 AM
"Our Palestinian colleagues—doctors, nurses, and first responders—are all rapidly losing weight due to forced starvation at the hands of the Israeli government," the signers said. "Many suffer from hunger, dizziness, and fainting episodes while performing operations and triaging patients in emergency rooms. Most have been displaced into tents after being forced from their homes, and many are surviving on less than a single serving of rice a day."
"Palestinian healthcare workers have been killed in large numbers as a result of Israel's repeated and systemic attacks on the health system and health workforce," the letter notes. "Over 1,580 health workers had been killed as of May 2025."
Furthermore, "the Israeli military has abducted, unlawfully detained, abused, and tortured hundreds of Palestinian healthcare workers, holding them in abject conditions in prisons and detention camps."
"The Israeli state has repeatedly blocked patient evacuations and international medical initiatives, and has closed or obstructed critical evacuation and humanitarian routes," the letter states. "Israel continues to systematically block the entry of critical supplies—medications, surgical tools, food, and even baby formula. As a result, Palestinian health workers must try to save lives in hospitals without the most basic supplies that are readily available only a short distance away."
The letter continues:
Patients cannot heal without adequate nutrition and access to comprehensive health services. If someone survives being shot by an Israeli soldier or a blast injury from an Israeli warplane, they still have to heal from their wounds. Malnutrition is a major barrier to full recovery, leaving people susceptible to infections for which very little treatment is now available in Gaza. Put simply: Your body cannot heal when you have not eaten properly in days or sometimes weeks, as is now commonplace in Gaza. The same is true for doctors and healthcare workers, who are struggling to provide care while facing the same conditions of extreme deprivation.
"These are not logistical challenges that can be solved simply by more medical aid or more international medical delegations," the signers added. "This is an entirely man-made crisis driven by limitless cruelty and complete disregard for Palestinian life."
The medical professionals are demanding international action to:
In addition to the 123 signatories who worked in Gaza, another 159 medical professionals from around the world signed the letter in solidarity.
The new letter comes as the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a fugitive from the International Criminal Court wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes—is preparing a major offensive to fully occupy and ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Launched in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, Israel's 676-day assault and siege on Gaza has left at least 230,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Most of Gaza's more than 2 million inhabitants have also been forcibly displaced, often multiple times. At least 235 Gazans, including 106 children, have starved to death amid a growing famine.
Despite growing international outrage and condemnation of Israel's obliteration of Gaza, there is no end in sight.