Craig Cramer wrote:
> I saw this on another list today, and thought it worth passing along.
>
> 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
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