The recent announcement that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have donated close to US$10 million to research what has been termed as ‘fertilizer free’ grain crops, whilst applaudable on the surface, only serves to distract us from the real solution to global hunger — agroecological (or natural farming) systems at the local level.
But first, let’s consider the concept of ‘fertilizer free’ food. What is actually being referred to here is the concept of transferring the genes responsible for nitrogen fixation from legume plants into grain crops, such as wheat and rice. In theory this sounds great. The application of nitrogen fertilizers is one of the most unsustainable and damaging practices in agriculture; if all plants produced their own nitrogen life would be much easier.
The reality, unfortunately, is not quite that simple. The scientists receiving this grant have themselves admitted that this research will not yield any results for at least 10 years. Other research into this area suggests it may require 20 years. But given the evidence that exists from GM research over the past 20 years one really must question whether or not genetically engineering multi gene traits such as those relating to nitrogen fixation is even possible at all.
And this is reflective of the marketing of genetically engineered crops more broadly. We are continually provided with feel good statements from the biotechnology lobby suggesting that GM crops will provide the solution to feeding the world. In reality however, after 20 odd years of research into this area, very few of these promises have been proven true and most GM crops are still single gene crops.
Why then is the biotechnology lobby so intent on promoting GM crops? For one simple reason — GM technology provides GM companies with the opportunity to own patents over the crops, patents over nature. With GM technology, seed companies have the ability to make more money than they ever have before. GM technology isn’t about feeding the world or improving farmers’ lives, at least not in Monsanto’s eyes. GM technology is about control of the global food system and anyone who tells you different is lying.
But the bigger question must be, do we even need GM?
Let’s look at this example specifically. The reality is that we already have legume food crops that can convert nitrogen from the air into a form that is useable by plants. By rotating leguminous crops with other crops such as grain crops we can dramatically reduce the need for nitrogen fertilisers. This is agroecological or natural farming — it has been done for thousands of years, and it provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now.
After all, synthetic fertilizers were only developed in the 20th century. Prior to this time farmers had to find natural sources of nutrient, from within their local environment, to replenish the nutrient that is exported with their crops. This is nothing new — we’ve just forgotten to farm in this way.
America’s own Rodale Institute has conducted and continues to conduct the world’s longest running trial comparing organic to conventional agriculture over the past 30 years. Over this period, even in volume terms alone, organic agriculture has proven to be more productive than conventional agriculture. But when the costs of inputs have been factored in, organic agriculture has been shown to be vastly more profitable.
Bill Gates seems to think that third world farmers are struggling because they don’t have the resources of their American counterparts. What he’s forgetting, is just how badly his well resourced US farmers are doing.
What’s more, he is continuing to ignore the advice of experts, who have been saying for years now that agroecological farming is the best way to feed not only the third world, but the entire world. This United Nations Report from 2010 (PDF) estimated that small-scale farmers could double food production in critical regions, within 10 years, by using agroecological methods. It makes complete sense; we have gone into these third world countries and tried to teach them to farm using our methods. We have got them addicted to our technologies and, more importantly, to our fertilisers and chemicals. It just doesn’t work.
This old proverb sums it up for me — give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
By teaching poor third world farmers to farm using modern, fossil fuel intensive agricultural methods using genetically engineered seeds, the rights for which are controlled under patents by multinational corporations, we are keeping farmers on the teat of western corporate control. But by teaching farmers to grow food using agroecological methods, using inputs that occur naturally around them, we are providing these people with the skills they need to not only to survive, but to flourish; independent of foreign aid.
Teaching these skills does not come cheap however. If Mr Gates is serious about feeding the world’s poor and helping us establish sustainable farming practices that will heal the environment and provide a future for humanity, he needs to look less towards GM and more towards nature.
Further Reading:
That’s a beautiful picture, where is it from?
I think too many of us are too trusting that Gates is actually “serious about feeding the world’s poor”. He may share the common delusion that industrial agriculture will save us, but could it be that his agenda is not actually so altruistic? He is not stupid, and it is now well known that serious analysis by the world’s leading agricultural scientists indicates that a holistic agroecological approach is the only real hope for a solution to the food crisis, and that “business as usual is not an option” (see the IAASTD report summary –
https://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Synthesis%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf )
Gates’ actions, his $23million shares in Monsanto, the extremely cosy relationship between the Gates Foundation and both Monsanto and Cargill, make a lot more sense if you accept that he is not out to help to the poor, but is in fact using “philanthropy” as a door opener to monopoly control of the world’s food supply by the Agribusiness giants whose profits he shares. Don’t forget, the vast majority of Gates Foundation funds go directly to biotechnology corporations. The outcome of the “green revolution for Africa” or the “second green revolution” that Gates is advocating would be massive land enclosure and land ownership concentration in Africa, and the devastation of agro-biodiversity in Africa, removing more people from the land and removing the community ownership of seed stocks.
In the industrial model, food is not a right, but a commodity. The world already produces more than enough food – people go hungry because they cannot access and/or cannot afford sufficient food.
A serious approach to food sovereignty in Africa would be to support the spread of Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration and other agroecological (Permacultural!) methods, investment in storage and distribution infrastructure…and halting the resource exploitation and arms profiteering by western powers.
Nailed it Richard !
Bill needs to look a bit deeper into the problem…
and support Permaculture !
When I heard this news a couple of weeks ago I wrote immediately to the Gates Foundation and within seconds received an automated response. This message said that my concern would be addressed.
But not a word has been heard as yet.
If and when I receive a reply I shall post it here.
I find the whole basis for GM irritatingly flawed. Nitrogen fixation alone doesnt solve erosion, soil degradation and other nutrient deficiencies. Soil degradation (reduction of soil nutrients/organic matter and water holding capacity), poorly managed water cycles (includes deforestation), and subsequent use of saline ground water are the main reasons for crop failures across the world. Developed and the underdeveloped nations face the same problem.
The unnecessary ‘engineering’ of these genetically modified plants is irksome. All crops ‘mine’ the soil, generally in the top metre, if that. If you sow the same types of plants crops year in year out, you are extracting the same nutrients over and over. Moreover rapacious farmers, want to export everything off their land: straw, grain, the lot. By the n-th year, there are no more nutrients.
So the premise to engineer a plant adapted to poorer conditions and to mine more efficiently is gone. In a degraded soil there is nothing there to ‘extract’. Farmers must know that their land need not be a one way cycle. In nature not everything is supposed to be eaten or sold off. So the sooner humanity realises that we need to contribute back to the earth while making a profit, the sooner we’ll be more sustainable and well fed!
……………………..’This is agroecological or natural farming — it has been done for thousands of years, and it provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now.’
Great, but …..The world’s population will swell from 7 to 9 billion in the next 50 years, during which time the human race will consume twice as much food as it has since the beginning of agriculture, 10,000 years ago (Nature, 2012). Are you sure we’re ready to go all out permaculture? Are you SURE we can handle it? If yes, then I say go for it. If you’re not absolutely sure though, perhaps, just maybe we should hedge our bets a bit. That is unless you think that widespread starvation is acceptable collateral damage for the greater good of going all out agroecological. Now.
But let’s say we do as you say. Right, natural, agroecological, permaculture farming’s the go. After all, ‘It provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now.’ Great, over to you. The lives of billions of people are in your hands. Go for it. You don’t have much time. We’re waiting and we’re getting hungry. Provide nutrition for 7 billion people, as you say, NOW. Go. Its been done for thousands of years, as you say, so surely you’re ready, the solutions have been known for thousands of years, as you say. Go. It’s up to you. We the billions put our lives in your hands. You told us you could do it. You told us you’ve been doing it for thousands of years after all. Go. Show us how you upscale your system to provide nutrition for 7-9 billion people. Now. Show us how you upscale to provide twice as much food in the next 30 years as has ever been produced by humanity. Go. We’re waiting. I’m getting hungry.
Or…..maybe it’s a good system, but maybe, just maybe we should just maybe hedge our bets a little, for a while at least. Maybe, like replacing fossil fuels we should use modern human ingenuity and good will to think about interim solutions. But…..then again, you did say that it has been done for thousands of years, and it provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now. So……….maybe I should trust you. I am getting hungry though. You know what? I’m thinking maybe we shouldn’t reject human ingenuity out of hand, reject things we don’t understand or that have been suggested by people we’d like to think could be suspect. Maybe we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket. A bit of solar, a bit of wind, a bit of wave power, some geothermal. That sounds better to me. I’m sure it was modern thinkers that came up with those good ideas. You know, I think you’re being too cocky telling us that you can ‘provide the real solutions for feeding the world. Now.’ I’m all for permaculture. Some of my most precious ideals were formed sitting beside Bill Mollison. To me, you’re hubris is making a mockery of your undoubted sincerity. Your certainty smacks of pre-enlightenment thinking and of a certain Cambodian’s dream of an agrarian paradise. Real solutions are to be found in a variety of interlocking and interwoven paths. All the answers don’t lie in the past. To reject the ingenuity of modern people and ideas and their potential out of hand, to say we’ve had the answers for thousands of years is following the same narrow, blinded thinking that led us into this mess. We can be better than that. Like it or not, we, as enlightened permaculturists, have a responsibility to be better than that. We also need to reject hubris out of hand.
Brian. I’m curious as to your suggestions. The current model of farming is unsustainable. i.e. it has an end date, which is approaching. It’s destroying soil organic matter, without which we cannot eat. It’s using way too much water (in some countries agriculture is using up to 98% of the country’s supply). And it’s polluting both soil and water. It’s also messing up the climate, which is putting significant pressure on what we do grow.
And significantly, the current industrial model of agriculture is dependent on cheap energy. I’d request you read this post:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/09/09/monsanto-has-us-walking-the-gangplank-and-wants-to-give-that-final-push/
and this:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/07/27/a-new-discovery-soluble-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon/
and this:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/08/12/which-came-first-pests-or-pesticides/
The reality is that the world is producing enough food for everyone at the moment, but our economic system is such that it ensures some people do not get it. This dilemma is expanded on here:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/08/09/orchestrating-famine-a-must-read-backgrounder-on-the-food-crisis/
If you’re suggesting we just keep on with industrial agriculture and GM crops, then you’re essentially saying that we should delay the inevitable – the inevitable being a shift to low-carbon, more resilient systems.
It’s proven that biodiverse systems are more productive:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/09/23/biodiverse-systems-are-more-productive/
Industrial agriculture is only more ‘efficient’ in one single way – that being it’s able to produce the most food per labourer. Permaculture systems can produce far more food per acre.
This single ‘efficiency’ is only possible due to the short-lived fossil fuel era. Take out the cheap oil, and you have a serious disaster.
We need to rapidly transition to get more people onto the land, where we can transition to farming without large inputs of finite fossil fuels and its associated by-products (fertilisers, pesticides, etc.). It’s going to happen, one way or another. The sooner it happens, the more likely we can do it peacefully, with a staged transition.
I hope you read the posts I’ve embedded in this comment. If you don’t, I’ll have to assume you’re an industry shill.
Hi Craig
Wow, that was some homework assignment you set me. Firstly, thanks for the new word. I’ve never heard of a shill before. I’m not that, I’m a concerned teacher/citizen/peace-loving activist/vegetarian/budding permaculturist/humanist/left of centre sort of guy, but not a shill. Secondly, don’t get me wrong, I love permaculture and am not knocking it per se. My issue is arm waving, with categorical statements (like ‘it’s proven that biodiverse systems are more productive….therefore…permaculture systems can produce far more food per acre. Hold on, one study about a ‘biodiverse’ rangeland system does not ‘prove’ that permaculture systems can produce far more food per acre. You’ve studied science. You know that’s not a valid leap. My issue is that arm waving is not a plan. I agree with many of the arguments you put, the system of food production and distribution that we have now is failed and continues to fail, but the fact of the matter is that population increases are completely unavoidable, they are just a matter of simple human biology + emotions + mathematics. The same goes for the green revolution and the fact that it saved lives. Transition to global permaculture by all means, but don’t wave your arms about telling us that we can do it now. If you reject the idea of mass starvation its not good enough to have a goal in mind without presenting a detailed plan. Even here in little old Australia, our society is built around an urban focus. Give me a plan that describes your new system of rural workers and extensive system of hyperproductive permaculture and I’ll be the first one to give up my day job and join the rural revolution. Telling me ad nauseam that the sky is falling and that the current system of food production is bad is easy. Tony Abbott is the past master of this sort of scare mongering. Give me your detailed plan, do your costings, come up with a workable transitional plan and I might be more willing to follow the path. Don’t forget the complexities of the task will you? Unless we all become airatarians the sort of intensive and extensive permaculture we are going to need to feed 9 billion plus people is going to take one hell of a lot of nutrients out of the system on an ongoing basis and they are going to need to be replaced/recycled. Don’t forget to show how that will be done in this brave new world. I agree with you that the planet will come to this. I just reject the idea that ‘its been done for thousands of years, and it provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now.’ Oh, and I’m not going to eat grassland or tree species so don’t even think about it.
Hi Brian. You write as if we have not considered the concerns you’re writing about – as if we don’t understand ‘the complexities of the task’. It is exactly because of this that people are doing ‘arm waving’ – as the BAU path we’re on is only delaying what needs to happen, and the longer it is delayed, the harder it will be.
Did you read the posts I asked you to read?
Here’s another for good measure:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2012/06/28/hope-for-a-new-era-before-after-examples-of-permaculture-earth-restoration-solving-our-problems-from-the-ground-up/
In short, we need to transition as smoothly and peacefully as possible to small-scale, biodiverse, relocalised farming and markets as quickly as possible.