There is an online version and archives of other Global Citizen columns by
Donella at:
http://www.tidepool.org/gcarchive.html
Craig
Two Mindsets, Two Visions of Sustainable Agriculture
By Donella Meadows
JULY 30, 1999
"I guess you must be in favor of pesticides," concluded a Monsanto
public relations guy, after I
objected to his company's genetically engineered potato.
"I guess it's OK with you if people starve," said a botanist I deeply
respect, with whom I have
carried out a fervent argument about genetic engineering.
Accusations like these astonish me. I'm an organic farmer; I'm not in
favor of pesticides. I've spent
decades working to end hunger; it is not OK with me that anyone
starves. I believe that my two
accusers and I are working toward exactly the same goal -- feeding
everyone without wrecking the
environment. We would all label that goal "sustainable agriculture."
But we must be making radically
different assumptions about what that goal looks like and how to get
there from here.
The idea that if I oppose genetic engineering, I must favor
pesticides, arises from an assumption that
those are the only two choices. If they were, I would probably agree
that it's better to fool with
genomes than to spray poisons over the countryside. But I see other
choices. Plant many kinds of
crops and rotate them, instead of one or two crops year after year,
which make a perfect breeding
ground for pests. Build up ecosystems above ground and in the soil so
natural enemies rise and fall
with the pests, searching and destroying with a specificity and
safety and elegance that neither
chemicals nor engineering can match.
These are pest control methods based not on chemistry or genetics,
but on ecology. They work. I
know. I use them. I know dozens of organic farmers who use them.
Small scale and large.
Northeast, South, Midwest, West. Apples, lettuce, potatoes,
strawberries, broccoli, rice, soybeans,
wheat, corn.
The claim that we need genetic engineering to feed the hungry must be
based on two assumptions:
first that more food will actually go to hungry people, second that
genetic engineering is the only way
to raise more food. I assume, to the contrary, that more food will
not help those who can't afford to
buy or grow it, especially if it comes from expensive, patented,
designer seed.
Furthermore, more food is not needed. We already grow enough to
nourish everyone. If just
one-third of the grain fed to animals went to humans instead, we
would not have 24,000 deaths per
day due to hunger. Or if 40 percent post-harvest loss rates in poor
countries were reduced. Or if we
shared the embarrassing crop surpluses of North America and Europe.
Or if we created an
economy where everyone had money to buy food or land to grow it --
which would solve a lot of
other problems too.
Where, when or if more food is needed, there are ways to produce it
that don't require biotech or
chemicals. Folks with an industrial ag mindset assume that organic
agriculture would cut yields. Not
only is there no evidence for that assumption, there are numerous
studies to the contrary. One of the
latest appeared in Nature last year; its summary opens like this: "In
comparison with conventional,
high-intensity agricultural methods, 'organic' alternatives can
improve soil fertility and have fewer
detrimental effects on the environment.
These alternatives can also produce equivalent crop yields to
conventional methods."
Imagine what yields could be if even one-tenth as much research
effort were put into organic farming
as has been put into chemicals or genetics.
When I show this evidence to proponents of high-tech farming, when I
offer to take them to see
organic farms, when I point out that hunger could be ended by sharing
food or technologies that raise
output without poisoning the\ earth or invading the genome, I don't
think my argument even reaches
their auditory nerves, much less their brains. That kind of extreme
failure even to hear an argument,
much less process it, alerts me that this is not a rational
discussion. It is a worldview difference, a
paradigm gap, a disagreement about morals and values and identities
and fundamental assumptions
about the way the world works.
I assume the world works by the laws of ecology and economics and
human nature.
Ecology says that monocultures breed pests; that chemicals upset soil
ecosystems and kill off natural
predators; that crops with pesticide in every cell will induce pest
resistance; that animals and plants
should be grown in close proximity so manure can go back to the soil;
and that we haven't the
slightest idea what the ecological or evolutionary consequences of
genetic engineering will be.
Economics says you can never have a sustainable market if you produce
something consumers fear
and you hide critical information about how it was produced and what
it contains. Because industrial
agriculture has violated that law and lost the trust of consumers,
the market for organic produce is
growing in American and Europe by 20-30 percent per year, even with a
price premium; it now
totals over $9 billion.
Human nature says the more actual producers can own and shape and
control land and inputs and
seeds and knowledge, the more inventive, adaptive, and equitable
agriculture will be.
Acceptance of those laws shapes my vision of sustainable agriculture.
I picture healthy ecosystems
and healthy human beings working together in thriving, close-knit
communities. Farms are small,
owner-operated, with what Wes Jackson calls a "high eyes-to-acres
ratio," which means they are
well managed and high-yielding. Farmers make more use of knowledge
and people than of
chemicals and seeds they can't breed for themselves. Animals are
raised on all farms; there are good
reasons why ecosystems don't concentrate all the plants in one place
and all the animals in another.
Food is grown everywhere, in cities, in suburbs. The distance from
producer to consumer is short,
there are fewer supermarkets, more farmers markets, less packaging,
more freshness. The principle
of one of my favorite organic farmers permeates the system: 'I'm not
growing food, I'm growing
health."
To those who do not believe such a vision is possible, I can only
say, it exists, it's alive and well and
growing, it's even more profitable than the industrial vision, the
food tastes better, the work is more
pleasurable. I live in this vision. I have friends all over the world
who live in it.
Come see.
-30-
Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental
studies at
Dartmouth College. More about Donella Meadows. Her column
appears
each Friday in Tidepool.
Craig Cramer
mailto:cdcramer@clarityconnect.com
1,000 Ways to Sustainable Farming
http://1000ways.baka.com
Sustainable Farming Connection
http://metalab.unc.edu/farming-connection
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail