farming for the future – revolutionary or smudging the push for organic?

Submitted by sproutingforth on Tue, 2009-11-10 20:40.

farming for the futureWoolworths has recently made public their pioneering of a new method of farming fresh produce. It's called 'farming for the future', and there's a lot of talk about improving the soil and plant health, preserving water, protecting biodiversity and being kinder to the environment.

The gist of the new farming for the future is that 'conventional farming methods are increasingly not sustainable' and that 'new methods improve soil and water quality and encourage biodiversity'. Woolworths mention that their 'agricultural experts' have spent three years developing the practices of this form of farming with their suppliers.

In a nutshell, farming for the future is a marriage of the 'best of conventional farming with the best of organic farming' – in other words, a hybrid. The company's CEO, Simon Susman says that they 'will continue to pursue organic farming but the yields can be inconsistent.'

Read Woolworths' full press release here

And here is where I begin to get uncomfortable. On the one hand this all sounds rather good; like a move in the right direction. One could take the view that this method of farming is promoting soil improvement, a reduction in the use of chemicals and follows a widescale move towards this kind of 'conventional' farming, which is certainly better than conventional farming.

As Ian Gilfillan from the Ethical Co-op says, 'this move would certainly make it easier to convert to organic in the future.'

But it is a highly contentious and complex issue, particularly if this new form of farming can be used to undermine organic farming. As David Wolstenholme, who is an advocate of the organic movement in South Africa and director of the Natural and Organic Product Exhibition, said in a Business Report article recently - this initiative continues to give suppliers a licence to use chemical insecticides, pesticides and fertilisers, whilst still looking green.

He also said that combining organic with conventional farming is “like trying to be half pregnant. You're either organic or you're not.”

I'm inclined to agree. There are several aspects that worry me about this method of farming, despite the obvious benefits to the soil, saving water and reducing the need for chemicals (although it is not clear just what quantities of chemicals the method allows for, it simply states that it will only use them 'when necessary').

One Where are the technical specifications of this method of farming, such as the levels of chemicals allowed in the soil. And just what constitutes 'healthy soil'. Will their standards be made public for all to view as is the case with organic certification?

Two Is it a good thing that Woolworths is not only the 'creator' of this method of farming, but essentially also the yardstick. Woolworths pays for an annual audit of farms by Enviroscientific, a body whose experience is biodiversity in the wine industry and the integrated production of wine in South Africa. The organic movement, by comparison, is subject to an independent body that deals specifically with organic farming worldwide – IFOAM.

Three The undermining of the organic movement. The 'best of organic farming' inadvertently implies that there is a 'worst of'.

Four This method of farming could be perceived as a diversionary tactic, an attempt to distract the public from the demand for organic fresh produce.

As Mark Botha of WWF, who support Woolworths' farming for the future, says: “It's quite shrewd, Woolworths are going to be massively reducing their risk in 10 years' time by having a supply base that's got far more sustainable farms that are less vulnerable to the vagaries of climate change and pest outbreaks.” [sunday times]

So, is the move to introduce a new set of goal posts in the form of a farming for the future revolutionary, or is it a diversion from the push for organic produce on shelves?

As Rob Small from Abalimi Bezekhaya says: “It's good if Woolworths genuinely push farmers to become more ecologically sustainable, but how does one prove that? Is it just a storm in a teacup and a distraction from the real issues, which are ethical?”

The jury is out. At the end of the day it's up to us as consumers to make that decision for ourselves. Woolworths is already placing a farming for the future logo on some fresh produce from this month.

Farms that are only 50% - 74% percent compliant will carry an 'in conversion' label (which could be misconstrued as organically in conversion), whilst farms that are at least 75% compliant with farming for the future criteria (which we have yet to see), will carry the full label.

pic: discovery.com


Organic's half-pregnancy

Well how is that for timing! I bought a pack of "farming for the future" strawberries just today, and was wondering what it meant...

You speak as if the case is closed on the organic debate. In many respects, organic farming is worse for the environment. While it's obviously better in terms of pesticides and chemicals etc, organic farming is also less efficient/has a lower yield than non-organic farming. That means more land is needed to grow the same amount of food, which means converting more virgin land into agricultural land. And land conversion is the number one destroyer of biodiversity, is it not?

Perhaps 'farming for the future' does indeed need to be a hybrid of organic and non-organic that is as organic as possible without necessitating further human encroachment into the world's wildernesses

Organic cant feed the world as asserted by Alistair et al?

Sorry Alistair, but what you say is simply not true. I copy you in with a response I made to the editorial team of the Weekender newspaper , who published it. If you want to know more, please feel free to contact me.

Dear Weekender Editorial team – I must sincerely and earnestly object to the unquestioned assumptions buried in your editorial entitled “decision on super spud points to worrying trend” in your 24-25 October edition of The Weekender.

It seems to me that you may never have run a small farm or backyard vegetable garden ? Or have forgotten? But if you were an enthusiastic vegetable gardener or small farmer, you would know that there is an unquestionable super-abundance of food at our fingertips, on even minute areas of land. That 100m2 can feed a whole family year round with fresh food. That a mere 500m2 can create a modest full time job for one person. That , if economic control systems which regulate agricultural production and supply permitted otherwise, there would be no need for anyone to go hungry, even if there were 10 billion people on the planet. .

Your editorial in support of “super spuds” (and in your case Alistair , your support for the chemical-industrial approach in general) and GM is based on three core unexamined assumptions:

1. there is not enough agricultural production to feed a growing world population

2. non-GM agriculture cannot produce enough to feed the world population

3. the movement which questions and challenges GM is unscientific

Did you not know that there can be a plenty of food, and to spare , especially in the so-called “poor countries” , without GM or "chemical-industrial" technology, where people who know how to farm on a small scale are given just a little help ?

Did you overlook the fact that food security is more a matter of distribution and economic control of inputs such as land, water, fertilizer and seed? That the ”enough food” issue is simply about control ?

Have you missed the point that 15 % of the world’s urban fresh food is produced in jars (sprouts) , pots, old bathtubs urban backyards and family plots and small family farms ? And this without any of the massive resource advantages conferred on the Industrial-GM approach to farming.

Are you unaware that, even with Climate Change, sustainable micro farming can easily feed the world population if it was supported by (a fraction) of the gargantuan resources currently thrown at GM and agri-chemical-industrial research and development?

Are you ignorant of the solid and mounting (but well hushed) scientific evidence that GM and agro-chemical technology is extremely dangerous to the fine balance and profound complexity of nature, which complexity is by far not yet understood , and that this lack of understanding is admitted to by our leading scientists?

Are you really ignorant of the fact that GM and agro-chemical technology that goes with it, is hugely and insufficiently untested , that the consequences of such marvelous technology simply cannot be predicted and therefore should remain in research phase for many many more years to come?

Have you somehow missed the fact that the “anti-GM” and " anti-agri-chemical/industrial" movement which, by the way, is not necessarily “anti”, but simply cautious, is backed by a massive body of solid scientific evidence and many prominent scientists?

Or don’t you care? Or (in your case Alistair, like most "normal" consumers?) simply too lazy to find out?

With deep concern.

Rob Small
www.farmgardentrust.org

organic farming can feed the world

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Rob. What a fantastic,comprehensive response to set the record straight. We are going to need more responsible, educated and aware 'consumers' to encourage(or force) 'producers' to move in the right direction.
Ultimately we should all be able to produce/grow our own food but in the meantime it's important to support organic, local and ethical farming practices to protect our agricultural land.
I suggest, Alistair, that you google Permaculture and find out just how much yield you can gain from a small space(or any agricultural area), growing organically and allowing for the creation of more biodiversity in the process.
Tamryn

feeding the world on less land

Ha! Nice one guys, I try to engage in a discussion about what I think is best for the planet and get called a lazy consumer! I'm not saying there isn't enough food to go round. What I am unsure of is if there is sufficient agricultural space to produce enough food for the world's megacities organically (most of the inhabitants of the world's biggest cities don't even have the 100m2 of space for vegetable patches you advocate). I'm all for architecture rising to the challenge, though, and if you can convince me organic doesn't necessitate the clearing of virgin land for agricultural use, then I'm all for it.

organic farming can feed the world

hi alistair

there are numerous studies coming out at the moment which show that organic farming CAN feed the world. go to this link:http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3918.
it is an interview with Brian Halweil from the Worldwatch Institute who wrote an article about this based on scientific research done which modelled the world being completely under organic agriculture. the links will direct you to the original research, if you care to read it. it concludes that extra land will NOT be needed for a worldwide conversion to organics.
it is a myth that the chemical and biotech agriculture companies want us to believe that organic cannot feed the world.
i am a skeptical academic and have done a lot of reading on this matter... i am pretty convinced by the research that we can feed the growing world population with organics.

feeding the world organically

Hi Candice, great to have you back! And thanks for your input and the important link.

Alistair, Do some reading

Alistair,

Do some reading and research. Your facts are a bit mixed up as they most likely come from government and commercial farming groups. There are always two sides to a story but not all stories are told. There is more and more evidence that organic farming, which is basically pre world war 2 farming before everything was industrialised, is more efficient than the monoculture industrial farming practised today. If it wasn't for misinformation put out there by advertising, and the general gullibility of us consumers believing everything the governments and chemical companies tell us we would be living healthier lives. Look around you at young people, I by the way am close to my sell by date so I have noticed some changes, how many bald 25 year old men to you see. How many people do you know that have cancer or chronic illnesses? Do you think that this has something to do with chemicals in our food and water? Changes to diet's with an increased consumption of organically grown vegetables and other foods appear to be beneficial in combating these. So what does this suggest to you?
Do yourself a favour, if you have got a bit of space for a vegetable garden start one and see what can be grown without chemicals. You will discover what vegetables really taste like, totally different from those that you buy in the shops. If you need help with your garden feel free to contact me, and I will try to help.

grow your own

Thank you Thomas for your reply! And you have highlighted a very important issue, and one I wholeheartedly support. Aside from stress under which we all now live, I think one of the major causes for dis-ease is the way our food is now grown, and how far removed we are from the process. Growing one's own vegetables is one of the most rewarding experiences!

So much for the information age

I definitely agree with you there! I don't for one second think that non-organic is healthier for us! It's obviously not - and yes, everyone is getting cancer or some form of chronic illness or food allergy/sensitivity. My ONLY issue with organic is the potential to increase the demand for land, when I think we should be restoring ecosystems to their pre-human ways rather than converting everything into farmland. But, as you say, it's hard to know what to believe out there. Perhaps it is all propaganda. I'd be quite relieved to know that ethical buying was straightforward - so thanks.

I don't have a garden, but I'll see what I can do with a pot plant or two on my little balcony :)

To say that organic farming

To say that organic farming is Worse for the environment then conventional farming is PAINFULLY ignorant.Organic farming does not use chemical fertilisers and pestisides and is still able to yield between 90 and 120% of conventional farming per hectre, organic land is able to handle drought and flood better then conventional land using less energy and zero poisons.This means a heathier water system, less top soil erosion, which equals a more dynamic ecosystem and biodiversity.You also say that its less efficient, its true that organic farming is more manually intensive, which means its a great way to create JOBS, which im sure you would agree are in short supply in South Africa.Where is all this virgin land to be turned that must be destroyed to make way for inefficient Organic farms. Currently less then 1% of cultivated land in the WORLD is organic, so if theres a food security issue, its not the fault of Organic farmers!! I would also argue that the greatest destroyer of bio diversity, would be mining, construction and synthetic fertilizer and pesticides which destroy our rivers and drinking water.

How about doing a little reading up on a topic before you share your opinions with the world? Heres a good place to start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming