seven deadly myths of industrial agriculture

Submitted by turbosprout on Mon, 2008-09-15 11:01


We regularly trawl second-hand bookshops for bargains and recently we picked up this gem of a book: Fatal Harvest - The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. It is quite a tome, but a very interesting and alarming read. I'm slowly making my way through it, dipping in to it now and then, but it will probably take a few months to complete. The book details the destruction of eco-systems and biodiversity by the global industrial farming complex and also presents a new vision for 21st century food systems. The contributing authors include a healthy dose of journalists, professors, legal experts, directors of NGO's and food activists, Vandana Shiva amongst them. Here are some pearls of wisdom from a section called Corporate Lies: Busting the Myths of Industrial Agriculture.

Myth One: Industrial Agriculture Will Feed the World
World hunger is not created by a lack of food but by poverty and landlessness, which deny people access to food. Industrial agriculture actually increases hunger by raising the cost of farming, by forcing tens of millions of farmers off the land, and by growing primarily high-profit export and luxury crops.

Myth Two: Industrial Food is Safe, Healthy, Nutritious
Industial agriculture contaminates our vegetables and fruit with pesticides, slips dangerous bacteria into our lettuce, and puts genetically engineered growth hormones into our milk. It is not surprising that cancer, food-borne illnesses, and obesity are at an all-time high.

Myth Three: Industrial Food is Cheap
If you added the real cost of industrial food - it's health, environmental, and social costs - to the current supermarket price, not even our wealthiest citizens could afford to buy it.

Myth Four: Industrial Agriculture is Efficient
Small farms produce more agricultural output per area than large farms. Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical and chemical inputs. These ever increasing inputs are devastating to the environment and make these farms far less efficient than smaller, more sustainable farms.

Myth Five: Industrial Food Offers More Choice
What the consumer actually gets in the supermarket is an illusion of choice. Food labelling does not even tell us what pesticides are on our food or what products have been genetically engineered. Most importantly, the myth of choice masks the tragic loss of tens of thousands of crop varieties caused by industrial agriculture.

Myth Six: Industrial Agriculture Benefits the Environment and Wildlife
Industrial agriculture is the largest single threat to the earth's biodiversity. Fence-to-fence ploughing, planting and harvesting techniques decimate wildlife habitats, while massive chemical use poisons the soil and water, and kills off countless plant and animal communities.

Myth Seven: Biotechnology Will Solve the Problems of Industrial Agriculture
New biotech crops will not solve industrial agriculture's problems, but will compound them and consolidate control of the world's food supply in the hands of a few large corporations. Biotechnology will destroy biodiversity and food security, and drive self-sufficient farmers off their land.

You can take a closer look at Fatal Harvest at Amazon.com or on the official website.


IAASTD

That sounds like a very interesting book.

You might be interested to check out the recent (April 2008) report by the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development).

It's quite a long report, but there is an executive summary. The report looks at the effect of developments in agriculture and what the impact on the future will be.

http://www.agassessment.org/

Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology

Dax, this is a very interesting report, thanks for pointing it out. It is curious that Intergovernmental Session was held in Joburg, but of the 58 Governments endorsing the Assessment, South Africa is not among them. SA is also not listed in the countries that did "not fully approve the Executive Summary", so it is not clear what SA's position is. Unsurprisingly the US, Canada and Australia don't fully approve, although it's not stated why (but we can guess).

It is encouraging to read that the assessment "is unique in the history of agricultural science assessments, in that it assesses both formal science and technology (S&T) and local and traditional knowledge, addresses not only production and productivity but the multifunctionality of agriculture..."

Signatory governments also agree that agriculture can no longer do "business as usual" and admit that the current model of reducing farm-gate prices by externalising costs is not sustainable.

Also good to read that policy options for addressing food securing need to include organic and fair trade products.

aah, yes

my entire Master's thesis is on this very subject. i am busy trying to finish it at the moment. it's due in a month and a half. but all of this looks very familiar. my thesis is focussed on small farmers, and the threat posed to African small-scale farmers by the introduction of "Green Revolution" farming methods. it's totally unsustainable for them - socially, environmentally and economically. so this is a subject very close to my heart. thanks for blogging about it.

traditional knowledge

Candice I'm sure you'll find the report mentioned above very interesting. It looks like there is some movement by world governments to address the harm done by the "Green Revolution". The "Assessment" they refer to now finally acknowledges the role of traditional knowledge alongside science and technology.

On it

hi there
thanks re IAASTD but don't worry - got it back in April. i also happen to have the version which was released with each and every objection logged on it. so i know exactly which phrases and words certain countries objected to. as one would expect, a report of this nature, which attempts to please VERY different stakeholders, is fairly schitzophrenic. one minute it is warning of the dangers of GM to food security etc and the next it is saying they offer great potential.
interestingly, i found some very revealing articles on the internet about certain biotech/GM stakeholders who walked out of the talks on the IAASTD because they felt the process was unfair towards them. makes for interesting reading if you can find them.

GM

Candice, If you have any of those links or an idea of where you found them, please post that info.

I think that GM does have potential. I am not against GM research. The dangers to food security can be avoided through government intervention and the dangers to the environment and personal health need to be researched and in time they could be solved.

IAASTD and GM

hi dax

am not going to get into another GM debate - but so far GM seeds do not outperform regular seeds. plus it has been shown that they need the same, if not higher, levels of pesticides than regular hybrid seeds. not to mention the fact that small-scale farmers cannot save the seeds due to patents. anyway...

re the IAASTD, the documents i am referring to were originally posted on the IAASTD website. they later got removed and replaced with the 'final' documents. if you want a copy of the documents which still have the objections in them, fill in the Contact Me on my blog and i will email them to you :)

tragedy is right

great post, guys! definitely a book i need to read... once one starts digging into this topic, there's so much to learn. everything i hear and read confirms what you're saying here - and i certainly am in the fullest possible support of organic methods versus the earth-pollution industrial agriculture unfortunately still so prevalent around the world.