tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/organic-farming-8825/articlesOrganic farming – The Conversation2024-03-10T13:10:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2248322024-03-10T13:10:41Z2024-03-10T13:10:41ZHow nature-based knowledge can restore local ecosystems and improve community well-being<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580297/original/file-20240306-16-iukteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=39%2C29%2C6032%2C3674&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Regenerative agricultural strategies can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from food production, restore local ecosystems and enhance community well-being.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Organizations in the food and agriculture sector have been <a href="https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/three-things-nature-based-solutions-agriculture">looking to nature for inspiration</a> to improve soil health, maintain water quality and foster local food security in the places where they operate.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/17/cop28-sustainable-agriculture-food-greenhouse-gases">evidence is clear</a> that our current food and agriculture systems are severely impacting global greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater usage and deforestation.</p>
<p>In response to these issues, activists, policymakers and corporate executives have been exploring <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/land-use-biodiversity/analysis-cop28-put-food-system-transformation-menu-who-will-pick-up-bill-2023-12-21">new strategies</a> for making our food systems more resilient and sustainable. </p>
<p>Regenerative agricultural strategies, in particular, can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from food production, restore local ecosystems and enhance community well-being in specific geographical locations. </p>
<p>But they also require a foundation of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/climate/the-farming-conundrum.html">nature-based or ecological knowledge</a> in order to be effective. Our recent research sheds light on how organizations can gain and make use of this knowledge.</p>
<h2>Regenerating local communities</h2>
<p>In the face of current global ecological challenges, there is a need to explore how organizations can help revitalize local communities and ecosystems. Our research on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266231220081">farming organizations on Vancouver Island</a>, British Columbia, aims to explore this.</p>
<p>We studied nine certified organic farming organizations to examine how they were harnessing and using ecological knowledge. Certified organic farming involves business operations that are <a href="https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2020/ongc-cgsb/P29-32-310-2020-eng.pdf">“sustainable and harmonious with nature</a>.” In B.C., farms are awarded <a href="https://organicbc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/BCCOP-Accreditation-Manual-v4.pdf">certification annually</a> after a rigorous evaluation process. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Piles of strawberries and cherries on sale at an indoor market." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580299/original/file-20240306-24-3smwaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580299/original/file-20240306-24-3smwaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580299/original/file-20240306-24-3smwaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580299/original/file-20240306-24-3smwaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580299/original/file-20240306-24-3smwaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580299/original/file-20240306-24-3smwaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580299/original/file-20240306-24-3smwaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Consumers have been increasing demand for locally sourced, pesticide-free and certified organic products.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unlike <a href="https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr54.c2">conventional farming practices</a> that prioritize short-term gains through the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and monocropping, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.11.002">organic farms focus on long-term health and ecological balance</a>.</p>
<p>The farms we studied were actively engaged in community initiatives aimed at conserving nature and strengthening local food and nutrition security.</p>
<p>Through a series of in-depth interviews with farmers, owners and other key decision-makers, we found these organizations were helping regenerate their local communities by committing to environmental stewardship, and pursuing, acquiring and applying new ecological knowledge.</p>
<h2>Environmental stewardship</h2>
<p>The leaders and decision-makers of the farming organizations we interviewed were strongly committed to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9749-0">environmental stewardship</a>. Environmental stewardship refers to actions and decisions that prioritize the conservation and enhancement of ecosystems and biodiversity, and the interests of future generations.</p>
<p>This commitment was evident through two main factors. First, decision-makers demonstrated a genuine appreciation for nature, leading them to feel strongly about safeguarding it from harm.</p>
<p>During our interviews, one farmer described how the goals of building sustainable communities and healthy ecosystems influenced her business’ long-term goals. She said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“In the long term if you don’t have a really solid, values-based business, then you’re going to disappear anyway. [We] put our values behind our environmental footprint and [our efforts to make] this community a better place.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Second, these leaders had a deep understanding of how their organizations relied on the health of the surrounding ecosystems. The farming practices adopted by them were based on building mutually beneficial relationships between their organizations, local ecosystems and communities. </p>
<p>One board member we interviewed emphasized their reliance on the surrounding ecosystems in an interview, stating that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“By enhancing biodiversity, we can bring back beneficial ecosystems that directly benefit our farmers. We recognized the importance of pollinators and took steps to increase biodiversity by reintroducing native bees.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This dedication to environmental stewardship led decision-makers to seek out ecological knowledge about the local ecology to help them foster the creation of healthy and diverse ecosystems.</p>
<h2>Restoring local ecosystems and well-being</h2>
<p>The decision-makers we interviewed decided to seek out new knowledge to improve their organization’s performance and promote long-term social and ecological well-being. They often did this in response to <a href="https://organicbc.org/media-release-organic-market-2021">rising demand from customers and community members</a> for locally sourced, pesticide-free and certified organic products. </p>
<p>Organizations acquired ecological knowledge by collaborating with scientists, academics and non-profit organizations through knowledge exchanges. In our study, for example, some farmers integrated scientific knowledge with their farming methods, resulting in improved crop yield and quality. </p>
<p>Organizations then put their newly acquired ecological knowledge into practice by transforming it into manuals, reports, operating procedures or other similar formats. This allowed the knowledge to be accessed easily and updated as necessary. Applying new knowledge required flexibility, a hands-on learning approach, and the willingness to discard outdated practices.</p>
<p>Once organizations fully integrated new ecological knowledge, they were able to contribute to regenerating their communities, which enhanced financial and ecological sustainability.</p>
<h2>A growing urgency</h2>
<p>With the world’s population projected to reach <a href="https://sustainablefoodbusiness.com/regenerative-agriculture-jbs-global/">10 billion by 2050</a>, there’s even more of a growing urgency to address environmental impacts and ensure community well-being, ecosystem health and food security, particularly in vulnerable places.</p>
<p>As businesses navigate today’s complex social and environmental challenges, the importance of <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/win-win-win-how-regenerative-farming-can-help-the-planet-farmers-and-you-1.5330180?cache=tzbrsjtr">turning to nature for inspiration is becoming increasingly evident</a>. </p>
<p>Businesses, in particular large corporations, have the responsibility to address the environmental impacts of the food system by committing to promote regenerative farming practices. </p>
<p>By situating themselves within their communities and prioritizing ecological knowledge, businesses have the potential to not only improve their own sustainability, but also to ignite positive change within the communities they operate in.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224832/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saeed Rahman received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowships.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Slawinski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the face of growing social and environmental challenges, organizations in the food and agriculture sector are increasingly turning to nature for inspiration.Saeed Rahman, Assistant Professor of Strategy and Sustainability, University of The Fraser ValleyNatalie Slawinski, Professor of Sustainability and Strategy, University of VictoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2025552023-05-08T12:19:43Z2023-05-08T12:19:43ZThese four challenges will shape the next farm bill – and how the US eats<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524429/original/file-20230504-15-4xz4fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=31%2C15%2C5161%2C3425&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Small-scale farmers, organic producers and local markets receive a tiny fraction of farm bill funding.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/fresh-produce-at-the-waverly-market-baltimore-maryland-news-photo/1296520990">Edwin Remsberg/VWPics/Universal Images Group/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the 20th time since 1933, Congress is writing a multiyear farm bill that will shape what kind of food U.S. farmers grow, how they raise it and how it gets to consumers. These measures are large, complex and expensive: The next farm bill is projected to cost taxpayers <a href="https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/02/a-view-of-the-2023-farm-bill-from-the-cbo-baseline.html">US$1.5 trillion</a> over 10 years. </p>
<p>Modern farm bills address many things besides food, from rural broadband access to biofuels and even help for small towns to buy police cars. These measures bring out a dizzying range of interest groups with diverse agendas.</p>
<p>Umbrella organizations like the <a href="https://www.fb.org/files/2023-Farm-Bill-Priorities-FINAL-23.0119.pdf">American Farm Bureau Federation</a> and the <a href="https://nfu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-NFU-Special-Order-of-Business-Farm-Bill.pdf">National Farmers Union</a> typically focus on farm subsidies and crop insurance. The <a href="https://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2023-Farm-Bill-Platform.pdf">National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition</a> advocates for small farmers and ranchers. Industry-specific groups, such as <a href="https://www.ncba.org/Media/NCBAorg/Docs/jan-2023-farm-bill-one-pager.pdf">cattlemen</a>, <a href="https://www.wga.com/wp-content/uploads/d7files/Farm%20Bill%20Cover%20Letter-Formatted%20v2.pdf">fruit and vegetable growers</a> and <a href="https://ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/2023%20Farm%20Bill%20Platform%20Priorities.pdf">organic producers</a>, all have their own interests. </p>
<p><a href="https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/4ts36tbe1v_Farm_Bill_Recommendations_Final.pdf?_ga=2.63891951.1986224278.1680824658-413312318.1680545091">Environmental</a> and <a href="https://farmland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/AFT_2023_Farm_Bill_Recommendations_Summary.pdf">conservation groups</a> seek to influence policies that affect land use and sustainable farming practices. <a href="https://www.cspinet.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/NANA%20Combined%20Farm%20Bill%20Priorities.pdf">Hunger and nutrition groups</a> target the bill’s sections on food aid. <a href="https://www.naco.org/resources/2023-farm-bill-primer">Rural counties</a>, <a href="https://www.trcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TRCP-AWWG-2023-FB-Platform_1-31-23.pdf">hunters and anglers</a>, <a href="https://www.aba.com/-/media/documents/testimonies-and-speeches/aba-statement-for-the-record-farm-bill-2023.pdf?rev=c490c77291fb4781b4e999b4d127e1de">bankers</a> and dozens of other organizations have their own wish lists.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://sustainability-innovation.asu.edu/person/kathleen-merrigan/">former Senate aide and senior official</a> at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I’ve seen this intricate process from all sides. In my view, with the challenges in this round so complex and with critical 2024 elections looming, it could take Congress until 2025 to craft and enact a bill. Here are four key issues shaping the next farm bill, and through it, the future of the U.S. food system. </p>
<p><iframe id="Z4s2m" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Z4s2m/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The price tag</h2>
<p>Farm bills always are controversial because of their high cost, but this year the timing is especially tricky. In the past two years, Congress has enacted major bills to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/american-rescue-plan/">provide economic relief from the COVID-19 pandemic</a>, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/15/by-the-numbers-the-inflation-reduction-act/">counter inflation</a>, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/">invest in infrastructure</a> and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/">boost domestic manufacturing</a>. </p>
<p>These measures follow <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932">unprecedented spending</a> for farm support during the Trump administration. Now legislators are jockeying over <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-america-has-a-debt-ceiling-5-questions-answered-164977">raising the debt ceiling</a>, which limits how much the federal government can borrow to pay its bills.</p>
<p><a href="https://fj-corp-pub.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/inline-files/FY24%20Views%20and%20Estimates%20Letter%20-%20final.pdf">Agriculture Committee leaders</a> and <a href="https://soygrowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Farm-Bill-Budget-Letter-3-14-2023-FINAL.pdf">farm groups</a> argue that more money is necessary to strengthen the food and farm sector. If they have their way, the price tag for the next farm bill would increase significantly from current projections. </p>
<p>On the other side, <a href="https://www.rstreet.org/research/the-shaky-foundations-of-modern-farm-policy/">reformers argue</a> for <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/updated-ewg-farm-subsidy-database-shows-largest-producers-reap-billions-despite-climate">capping payments to farmers</a>, which The Washington Post recently described as an “expensive <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/05/congress-farm-bill-subsidies-debt/">agricultural safety net</a>,” and restricting payment eligibility. In their view, too much money goes to very large farms that produce <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/w3240e/w3240e06.htm">commodity crops</a> like wheat, corn, soybeans and rice, while small and medium-size producers receive far less support.</p>
<p><iframe id="aAu0X" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aAu0X/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Food aid is the key fight</h2>
<p>Many people are surprised to learn that nutrition assistance – mainly through the <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program">Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program</a>, formerly known as food stamps – is where most farm bill money is spent. Back in the 1970s, Congress began including nutrition assistance in the farm bill to secure votes from an increasingly urban nation. </p>
<p>Today, <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap">over 42 million Americans depend on SNAP</a>, including nearly 1 in every 4 children. Along with a few smaller programs, SNAP will likely consume 80% of the money in the new farm bill, up from <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018-highlights-and-implications/">76% in 2018</a>. </p>
<p>Why have SNAP costs grown? During the pandemic, SNAP benefits were increased on an emergency basis, but that temporary arrangement <a href="https://theconversation.com/extra-snap-benefits-are-ending-as-us-lawmakers-resume-battle-over-program-that-helps-low-income-americans-buy-food-199929">expired in March 2023</a>. Also, in response to a directive included in the 2018 farm bill, the Department of Agriculture recalculated what it takes to afford a healthy diet, known as the <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/thriftyfoodplan">Thrifty Food Plan</a>, and determined that it required an additional $12-$16 per month per recipient, or 40 cents per meal. </p>
<p>Because it’s such a large target, SNAP is where much of the budget battle will play out. Most Republicans typically seek to rein in SNAP; most Democrats usually support expanding it.</p>
<p>Anti-hunger advocates are lobbying to make the increased pandemic benefits permanent and defend the revised Thrifty Food Plan. In contrast, Republicans are calling for SNAP reductions, and are particularly focused on expanding <a href="https://georgiarecorder.com/2023/03/28/usda-secretary-battles-with-u-s-house-republicans-over-costs-of-federal-nutrition-programs/">work requirements</a> for recipients. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Groceries on a kitchen counter." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524514/original/file-20230504-19-qqkzt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jaqueline Benitez puts away groceries at her home in Bellflower, Calif., Feb. 13, 2023. Benitez, 21, works as a preschool teacher and depends on SNAP benefits to help pay for food.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FoodStamps/95413d28987347f09dfc93598e7dbb45/photo">AP Photo/Allison Dinner</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Debating climate solutions</h2>
<p>The 2022 <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biden-signs-historic-climate-bill-as-scientists-applaud/">Inflation Reduction Act</a> provided $19.5 billion to the Department of Agriculture for programs that address climate change. Environmentalists and farmers alike <a href="https://www.farmanddairy.com/news/farm-conservation-groups-applaud-climate-ag-funding/730970.html">applauded this investment</a>, which is intended to help the agriculture sector embrace climate-smart farming practices and move toward markets that reward carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services. </p>
<p>This big pot of money has become a prime target for members of Congress who are <a href="https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/gop-senators-eye-climate-bill-funding-as-way-to-fatten-farm-bill-accounts">looking for more farm bill funding</a>. On the other side, conservation advocates, sustainable farmers and progressive businesses oppose diverting climate funds for other purposes. </p>
<p>There also is growing demand for Congress to require USDA to develop better standards for measuring, reporting and verifying actions designed to <a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2021/usda-announces-new-initiative-to-quantify-climate-benefits-of-conservation-reserve-program">protect or increase soil carbon</a>. Interest is rising in “<a href="https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/topics/carbon-farming-opportunities-for-agriculture-and-farmers-to-gain-from-decarbonization">carbon farming</a>” – paying farmers for practices such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/restoring-soil-can-help-address-climate-change-121733">no-till agriculture and planting cover crops</a>, which some studies indicate can <a href="https://rodaleinstitute.org/why-organic/issues-and-priorities/carbon-sequestration/">increase carbon storage in soil</a>. </p>
<p>But without more research and standards, observers worry that investments in climate-smart agriculture will support <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90796487/is-regenerative-agriculture-the-future-of-farming-or-the-next-greenwashing-fad">greenwashing</a> – misleading claims about environmental benefits – rather than a fundamentally different system of production. <a href="https://thefern.org/2022/12/a-pillar-of-the-climate-smart-agriculture-movement-is-on-shaky-ground/">Mixed research results</a> have raised questions as to whether establishing carbon markets based on such practices is premature. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1651673592545812481"}"></div></p>
<h2>A complex bill and inexperienced legislators</h2>
<p>Understanding farm bills requires highly specialized knowledge about issues ranging from crop insurance to nutrition to forestry. Nearly one-third of current members of Congress were first elected after the 2018 farm bill was enacted, so this is their first farm bill cycle. </p>
<p>I expect that, as often occurs in Congress, new members will follow more senior legislators’ cues and go along with traditional decision making. This will make it easier for entrenched interests, like the American Farm Bureau Federation and major commodity groups, to maintain support for <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-policy/title-i-crop-commodity-program-provisions/">Title I programs</a>, which provide revenue support for major commodity crops like corn, wheat and soybeans. These programs are complex, cost billions of dollars and go mainly to large-scale operations.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Sz9PJ5BUc4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How the U.S. became a corn superpower.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s current stump speech spotlights the fact that 89% of U.S. farmers <a href="https://civileats.com/2022/06/02/field-report-tom-vilsack-usda-food-system-transformation-climate-equity-justice/">failed to make a livable profit</a> in 2022, even though total farm income <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/highlights-from-the-farm-income-forecast">set a record at $162 billion</a>. Vilsack asserts that less-profitable operations should be the focus of this farm bill – but when pressed, he appears <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3903829-support-for-small-farms-wont-hurt-big-ones-vilsack-tells-lawmakers/">unwilling to concede</a> that support for large-scale operations should be changed in any way. </p>
<p>When I served as deputy secretary of agriculture from 2009 to 2011, I oversaw the department’s budget process and learned that investing in one thing often requires defunding another. My dream farm bill would invest in three priorities: <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/grow-organic-climate-health-and-economic-case-expanding-organic-agriculture">organic agriculture as a climate solution</a>; infrastructure to support vibrant local and regional markets and shift away from an agricultural economy dependent on exporting low-value crops; and agricultural science and technology research aimed at reducing labor and <a href="https://theconversation.com/fertilizer-prices-are-soaring-and-thats-an-opportunity-to-promote-more-sustainable-ways-of-growing-crops-183418">chemical inputs</a> and providing new solutions for sustainable livestock production. </p>
<p>In my view, it is time for tough policy choices, and it won’t be possible to fund everything. Congress’ response will show whether it supports business as usual in agriculture, or a more diverse and sustainable U.S. farm system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Merrigan is a former Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture</span></em></p>Even if you don’t live near farm country, you’ve got a stake in the upcoming farm bill – including what kind of farms your tax dollars support.Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director, Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1872802022-07-27T20:12:28Z2022-07-27T20:12:28ZSoil abounds with life – and supports all life above it. But Australian soils need urgent repair<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476182/original/file-20220727-26-vnckee.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C14%2C2500%2C1115&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Under your feet lies the most <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13855">biodiverse habitat on Earth</a>. The soil on which we walk supports the majority of life on the planet. Without the life in it, it wouldn’t be soil. Unfortunately, Australia’s soils are not in good shape. The new State of the Environment report rates our soils as <a href="https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/land/environment/soil#-assmt-lan-03-assessment-soil-health">“poor” and “deteriorating”</a>. </p>
<p>We’re all familiar with some soil dwellers, such as earthworms. But the lion’s share of life underneath is invisible to the naked eye. Microbiota like bacteria, nematodes, and fungi play vital roles in our environment. These tiny lifeforms break down dead leaves and organic matter, they cycle nutrients, carbon and water. Without them, ecosystems <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021257">would collapse</a>. Amazingly, most of this wealth of life is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmJUj4Aa2kM">unknown to science</a>. </p>
<p>Australia has not undergone the same glacial or volcanic activity as other parts of the world. That’s left most of our soil <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.13456">old and infertile</a>. Our soils are highly sensitive to human pressures, such as contamination, acidification and loss of organic carbon. When we remove <a href="https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/land/pressures/industry#land-clearing">communities of plants</a>, this leads to soil erosion. Land clearing also hits underground life hard, causing <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00990">microbial diversity to decline</a>. </p>
<p>Soil’s lifeforms are also under immense pressure from agriculture, as well as climate change and urban expansion. If we include livestock, <a href="https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/land/pressures/industry#agriculture">more than half</a> of Australia is now being used for farming. If we can improve farming methods, we can bring back soil biodiversity – and use it to produce healthy crops. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Farmer tilling" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476176/original/file-20220727-25-5afxy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Intensive farming methods can destroy underground fungal networks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why does it matter if we lose soil microbial diversity?</h2>
<p>Australia has many different <a href="https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/land/environment/soil#-lan-011-figure-11-soil-classification-orders-across-australia">soil types</a>. Images of each state’s <a href="https://www.soilscienceaustralia.org.au/about/about-soil/state-soils/">iconic soil</a> demonstrates how much they can differ. Importantly, soils differ greatly in their ability to support industrial crop production. Much of Australia is not naturally suited to this. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/pay-dirt-200-million-plan-for-australias-degraded-soil-is-a-crucial-turning-point-160704">Pay dirt: $200 million plan for Australia's degraded soil is a crucial turning point</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some intensive farming methods like ploughing, irrigation and the use of fertilisers and pesticides are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12752">particularly damaging</a> to the life in our soils. We know these practices reduce the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.005">abundance and diversity</a> of a particularly important group of microorganisms, known as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi spread out into vast <a href="https://www.spun.earth/">fungal networks</a> below ground, and colonise the root systems of plants in a symbiotic relationship.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Microscope images of fungi inside plant roots." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475266/original/file-20220720-18-4w2dhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fungal structures inside the roots of a plant. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi grow into plant roots to obtain carbon and provide plants with access to nutrients and water.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Adam Frew</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When you look at a field of corn or wheat, you might think all the action is above ground. But what happens in the soil is vital. The plants we rely on to survive rely in turn on strong relationships with these underground fungal networks. </p>
<p>Soil fungi can boost plant uptake of key resources like phosphorus and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18281">water</a> and can even improve how <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17781">plants resist pests</a>. These fungi are also critical to the cycling of nutrients and carbon in our environment, and the networks they form <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01750.x">give structure to soil</a>. These relationships go back much further than humans do. Plants and fungi have been cooperating for hundreds of millions of years.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of a fungal network in the soil." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475285/original/file-20220721-1473-rf13tn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475285/original/file-20220721-1473-rf13tn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475285/original/file-20220721-1473-rf13tn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475285/original/file-20220721-1473-rf13tn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475285/original/file-20220721-1473-rf13tn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475285/original/file-20220721-1473-rf13tn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/475285/original/file-20220721-1473-rf13tn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mycorrhizal fungi grow into plant roots and through soil, creating vast networks belowground which are vital to soil health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Loreto Oyarte Galvez, VU Amsterdam</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite breaking up this relationship in our agriculture, we have achieved ever-increasing yields. </p>
<p>That’s because most crop and pasture production relies on various fertilisers and pesticides for crop nutrition and pest control, rather than fungal networks or soil biology. The continued development of these fertilisers and pesticides have undoubtedly enhanced crop production and allowed millions of people to <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0912953109">escape hunger and poverty</a>. </p>
<p>The problem is, relying on pesticides and fertilisers is not sustainable. Many pesticides are under increasing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err064">restrictions or bans</a>, and phosphorus fertiliser will only become more expensive as we deplete <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4650">global phosphate reserves</a>. Critically, their excessive use negatively <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.09.006">impacts soil biology</a> and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14981">environment</a>.</p>
<p>If we reduce the diversity of fungi in our soils, we lose the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15602">benefits they provide</a> to healthy ecosystems – and to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01799-8">our crops</a>. A soil with less biodiversity erodes more easily, loses its stored carbon quicker and causes disrupted nutrient cycles. </p>
<h2>Can we protect our soil fungi?</h2>
<p>Yes – if we change how we manage our soils. By working with our living soils rather than against them, we can meet increasing demand for food and keep farms economically viable. </p>
<p>As you might expect, <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03230.x">organic and conservation farming</a> is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.03.012">less damaging to soil fungi</a> compared to conventional farming, due to their limited use of certain fertilisers and most pesticides. </p>
<p>These approaches also involve less ploughing or tilling of the soil, which lets fungal networks <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.005">remain intact</a> and so <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.09.009">benefitting soil structure</a>. This can promote plant <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17781">protection from pests</a>, and this soil biodiversity also keeps disease-causing microbes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15744">in check</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Green shoots farm" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476186/original/file-20220727-12-s5dbka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Harnessing underground biodiversity can help crops grow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Clearly, changes to our agriculture can’t happen overnight. Sri Lanka’s sudden ban on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides in 2021 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/20/sri-lanka-fertiliser-ban-president-rajapaksa-farmers-harvests-collapse">caused chaos</a> in their farming sector and continues to threaten their food security. Widespread adoption of more sustainable farming techniques in Australia must be done gradually, with support and incentives from industry and government. But it will have to happen. The status quo can’t last, as our soils <a href="https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/land/environment/soil#-assmt-lan-03-assessment-soil-health">continue to deteriorate</a> and fertilisers and pesticides become more expensive and unavailable. </p>
<h2>To care for our soils, we need to know more about them</h2>
<p>While we know the life permeating our soils is in trouble, we need to know more. One important finding from the State of the Environment report was the need for more data on the <a href="https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/land/key-findings">biology of our soil</a> to aid sustainable land use. </p>
<p>Why? To date, most of our understanding of how farming impacts soil fungal diversity is based on overseas research. Despite the ecological importance of these microbiota and their potential to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12788">accelerate sustainable food production</a>, we still don’t have a clear picture of what’s underneath our fields. For a start, we need to know what mycorrhizal fungi live where. </p>
<p>To overcome this challenge, we have launched Dig Up Dirt, a new nationwide <a href="https://www.digupdirt.net/">research project</a> designed to let us take stock of our beneficial soil fungi. </p>
<p>Farmers, land managers and citizen scientists can send us soil samples to allow us to map Australia’s networks of soil fungi. The data we collect will also be fed into the international efforts to <a href="https://www.spun.earth/">map fungi globally</a>. </p>
<p>This is a long-overdue step towards learning to work with soil fungi to benefit agriculture – while conserving the life below our feet.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fertilizer-prices-are-soaring-and-thats-an-opportunity-to-promote-more-sustainable-ways-of-growing-crops-183418">Fertilizer prices are soaring – and that's an opportunity to promote more sustainable ways of growing crops</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187280/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Frew receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christina Birnbaum has received funding from Parks Victoria. She is a lead-convenor of the Ecological Society of Australia Plant-Soil Ecology Research Chapter. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eleonora Egidi receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Meike Katharina Heuck receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The new State of the Environment report shows Australia’s soil and the life it holds is in poor condition. We need to protect our underground biodiversity.Adam Frew, Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, University of Southern QueenslandChristina Birnbaum, Lecturer, University of Southern QueenslandEleonora Egidi, Researcher, Western Sydney UniversityMeike Katharina Heuck, PhD Candidate, University of Southern QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1690782021-11-03T12:29:54Z2021-11-03T12:29:54ZUnlike the US, Europe is setting ambitious targets for producing more organic food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429622/original/file-20211101-19-1mjepl0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C19%2C4252%2C2488&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An organic food market in Berlin.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/germany-berlin-prenzlauer-berg-organic-food-shop-lpg-news-photo/548153731">Schöning/ullstein bild via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Joe Biden has called for an <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-plans-to-fight-climate-change-in-a-way-no-u-s-president-has-done-before-152419">all-of-government response</a> to climate change that looks for solutions and opportunities in every sector of the U.S. economy. That includes agriculture, which emits <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#agriculture/entiresector/allgas/select/all">over 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year</a> – more than the total national emissions of the <a href="https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG">United Kingdom, Australia, France or Italy</a>.</p>
<p>Recent polls show that a majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and willing to <a href="https://theconversation.com/pews-new-global-survey-of-climate-change-attitudes-finds-promising-trends-but-deep-divides-167847">make lifestyle changes to address it</a>. Other surveys show that many U.S. consumers are worried about possible health risks of eating food produced with <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/11/19/public-perspectives-on-food-risks/">pesticides, antibiotics and hormones</a>.</p>
<p>One way to address all of these concerns is to expand organic agriculture. Organic production generates <a href="https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/fst-30-year-report.pdf">fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional farming</a>, largely because it doesn’t use synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. And it prohibits using synthetic pesticides and giving hormones or antibiotics to livestock.</p>
<p>But the U.S. isn’t currently setting the bar high for growing its organic sector. Across the Atlantic, Europe has a much more focused, aggressive strategy.</p>
<h2>The EU’S Farm to Fork plan</h2>
<p>The European Union’s <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en">Farm to Fork</a> strategy, often described as the heart of the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en?_ga=2.201656977.1662622590.1631910401-1915539932.1631910401">European Green Deal</a>, was adopted in 2020 and <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farm-to-fork-strategy-europe-food-production-sustainability-agriculture/">strengthened</a> in October 2021. It sets forth ambitious 2030 targets: a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, a 50% cut in pesticide use and a 20% cut in fertilizer use. </p>
<p>Recognizing that organic production can make important contributions to these goals, the policy calls for increasing the percentage of EU farmland under organic management from 8.1% to 25% by 2030. The European Parliament has adopted a detailed <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12555-Organic-farming-action-plan-for-the-development-of-EU-organic-production_en">organic plan</a> to achieve this goal. </p>
<p>Today the U.S. is the world’s largest <a href="https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1150-organic-world-2021.pdf">organic marketplace</a>, with US$51 billion in sales in 2019. But the EU is not far behind, at $46 billion, and if it achieves its Farm to Fork targets, it is likely to become the global leader. </p>
<p>And that ambition is reflected in national food policies. For example, in Copenhagen 88% of ingredients in meals served at the city’s 1,000 public schools <a href="https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1150-organic-world-2021.pdf">are organic</a>. Similarly, in Italy school meals in more than 13,000 schools countrywide contain organic ingredients. </p>
<p><iframe id="jhUPe" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jhUPe/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The U.S. strategy is technology-driven</h2>
<p>In contrast with the EU, the U.S. has no plan at the national level for expanding organic production, or even a plan to make a plan.</p>
<p>Less than 1% of U.S. farmland – about 5.6 million acres (2.3 million hectares) is farmed according to national organic standards, compared with 36 million acres (14.6 million hectares) in the EU. This small sector doesn’t produce enough organic food to meet consumer demand, so much of the organic food consumed in the U.S. is imported from nearly <a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/">45,000 foreign operations</a>. While the U.S. government tracks imports of only 100 organic food products – a small sliver of what comes in – spending in 2020 on these items alone <a href="https://news.wp.prod.gios.asu.edu/files/2021/08/US-organic-imports.pdf">exceeded $2.5 billion</a>. </p>
<p>I see this gap as a huge missed opportunity. President Biden has called for a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/29/remarks-by-president-biden-in-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress/">“Buy American” strategy</a> to bolster the U.S. economy, but today consumers are spending money on organic imports without reaping the <a href="https://nifa.usda.gov/topic/organic-agriculture">environmental</a> or <a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/community-development/publications/harvesting-opportunity">economic</a> benefits of having more land under organic management. More domestic production would improve soil and water quality and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1394416">create jobs in rural areas</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="7f996" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7f996/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>While the U.S. and the EU are working together to <a href="https://twitter.com/SecVilsack/status/1455243583251001349">address agriculture’s contribution to climate change</a>, they have <a href="https://www.farmprogress.com/farm-policy/vilsack-defends-us-farm-practices-world-stage">very different views on the role of organic farming</a>. At a U.N. <a href="https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/summit">Food Systems Summit</a> on Sept. 23, 2021, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack launched a new international coalition on <a href="https://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/secretary-vilsack-remarks-g20-open-forum-sustainability">sustainable productivity growth</a>, calling on countries and organizations to join the U.S. in the cause of increasing yields to feed a growing world population. In his press briefings, Vilsack promoted <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farm-to-fork-europe-united-states-food-agriculture-trade-climate-change/">voluntary, incentive-based and technological approaches</a> to producing more food, such as gene editing, precision agriculture and artificial intelligence. </p>
<p>Vilsack asserts that the European Union’s emphasis on organic production will <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farm-to-fork-europe-united-states-food-agriculture-trade-climate-change/">reduce output and push up food prices</a>. This argument reflects a long-standing debate about whether organic farming can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w">produce enough food to meet demand while using fewer chemical inputs</a>.</p>
<p>The strongest <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/10/26/usda-announces-initial-supporters-sustainable-productivity-growth">support for the USDA strategy</a> is no surprise. It comes mostly from conventional agriculture groups, including Syngenta, Bayer and Corteva – three of the four <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/257489/ranking-of-leading-agrochemical-companies-worldwide-by-revenue/">largest global agrichemical companies</a> – along with their lobbying arm, <a href="https://www.croplifeamerica.org/">CropLife America</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/541541773" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Patrick Barbour, winner of a climate-friendly farming competition sponsored by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, explains steps he is taking on his organic sheep and cattle farm to reduce carbon emissions and deliver environmental benefits.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More organic doesn’t mean going backward</h2>
<p>In my view, these U.S. talking points are outdated. The world’s farmers already produce enough food to feed the world. The question is why <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report">many people still go hungry</a> when <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cb1329en/online/cb1329en.html#chapter-2_1">production increases year over year</a>. </p>
<p>At the U.N. Food Systems Summit, many world leaders called for reforms to <a href="https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/first-un-food-systems-summit-seeks-new-recipe-healthy-people-and-planet">eradicate hunger, poverty and inequality, and address climate change</a>. Food systems experts understand that global <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0002-4">nutrition security</a> depends on empowering women, eliminating corruption, addressing food waste, preserving biodiversity and embracing environmentally responsible production – including organic agriculture. Not on the list: increasing yields.</p>
<p>Addressing agriculture’s role in climate change means changing how nations produce, process, transport, consume and waste food. I believe that when leaders call for cutting-edge, science-based solutions, they need to embrace and support a broad spectrum of science, including <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037en.pdf">agroecology</a> – sustainable farming that works with nature and reduces reliance on external inputs like fertilizers and pesticides. </p>
<p>The Biden-Harris administration could do this by developing a comprehensive plan to realize the untapped potential of organic agriculture, with clear goals and strategies to increase organic production and with it, the number of organic farmers. Consumers are ready to buy what U.S. organic farmers raise.</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169078/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Merrigan directs the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, which receives funding from the Organic Trade Association. She is co-director of a project on inadvertent chemical contamination of organic crops funded by the US Department of Agriculture. Merrigan is a member of the Advisory Committee for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. She also is an advisor to S2G Ventures and a Venture Partner at Astanor Ventures, two agtech firms that have some organic companies in their much broader portfolios. As a US Senate staffer, Merrigan drafted the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. She has served on the National Organic Standards Board, as Administrator of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. </span></em></p>An expert on organic agriculture argues that the US is missing an economic and environmental opportunity by not working to scale up organic production.Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director, Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1264102019-12-13T13:41:59Z2019-12-13T13:41:59Z‘Organic’ label doesn’t guarantee that holiday ham was a happy pig<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306186/original/file-20191210-95125-1473z63.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2592%2C1944&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Federal organic regulations require outdoor access for livestock -- but don't specify how much.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/5707774275">US Dept. of Agriculture/flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This holiday season, Americans will buy <a href="https://time.com/3646915/christmas-turkey-ham-dinner/">some 20 million turkeys and 300 million pounds of ham</a>. </p>
<p>Some of these turkeys and hams will be certified organic, reflecting the common belief that organically raised animals live happier, more natural lives. </p>
<p>The reality, though, is more complicated. </p>
<p>Government regulations for organic farming contain few specific protections for pigs, poultry, egg-laying hens and other animals raised for human consumption. So conditions on organic farms may not actually be all that different from those at traditional livestock operations.</p>
<h2>Organic explosion</h2>
<p>The organic food industry has grown enormously in the U.S. in recent decades. </p>
<p>Organic farming began as a radical cause in the 1970s embraced by a <a href="https://library.ucsc.edu/reg-hist/cultiv/home">small group of farmers in California and a handful of other states</a>. These pioneers sought to grow food naturally, rather than assert their dominance over the Earth. As such, they eschewed <a href="https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Bulletins/Transitioning-to-Organic-Production/Text-Version/History-of-Organic-Farming-in-the-United-States">synthetic pesticides and fertilizers</a>. </p>
<p>Animal ethics were part of these farmers’ vision, too. Rather than thinking of livestock only as producers of meat, milk and eggs, many organic farmers viewed animals as <a href="https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/sustaining-vision/">equal partners in a farm ecosystem</a> that perform important functions like fertilizing soil and controlling pests. </p>
<p>Organic is now mainstream. Organic food sales in 2018 totaled nearly <a href="https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/13805-us-organic-food-sales-near-48-billion">US$48 billion</a>, up from $8.5 billion in 2002. <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview/">Two-thirds of shoppers have tried organic products</a>. </p>
<p>But organic agriculture has struggled to maintain its early commitment to animal welfare. </p>
<p>In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Obama announced a new <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-00888/national-organic-program-nop-organic-livestock-and-poultry-practices">rule</a> that enhanced animal welfare requirements for organic farms. Among other things, it set strict rules for outdoor access and prohibited what USDA called “physical alterations” of animals – what animal rights advocates call “mutilations.” </p>
<p>In mainstream agriculture, pigs’ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/opinion/the-unkindest-cut.html">tails are often amputated</a>, or “docked,” so that they will not be bitten off by other pigs. Chickens have <a href="http://www.poultryhub.org/health/health-management/beak-trimming/">portions of their beaks removed</a> to prevent them from pecking one another.</p>
<p>But the agency <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/12/usda-decides-not-impose-additional-regulatory-requirements-organic">scrapped the new rule</a> two years later, in 2018, before it could take effect. </p>
<p><a href="https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2018/03/usda-continues-attack-integrity-organic-food-label-sparks-alternative-add-labels/">Dismayed animal welfare advocates</a> and organic farmers blamed <a href="https://civileats.com/2017/12/18/years-in-the-making-trumps-usda-kills-organic-animal-welfare-rules/">resistance from big agriculture</a> and the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/10/23/trump-exceeds-one-in-two-out-goals-on-cutting-regulations-but-it-may-be-getting-tougher/#2b270dbb3d40">Trump administration’s goal of eliminating regulations</a> for the policy change.</p>
<p>There’s some truth to these assertions. But <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=23573">my research on the history of organic food</a> finds that politics isn’t the only reason organic farms aren’t required to treat animals more humanely.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306187/original/file-20191210-95165-vfx95j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In conventional agriculture, egg-laying chicken live their lives in cages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Egg-Farm-Probe/db8d9090ced44c50b298274bf9a2f002/97/0">AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>USDA misses the mark</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Foods%20Production%20Act%20of%201990%20(OFPA).pdf">Organic Foods Production Act</a> – the only law governing organic farming in the United States – simply doesn’t authorize federal regulators to protect animals raised “organically.” </p>
<p>Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, directing the USDA to write national organic farming regulations. </p>
<p>Like many early organic farmers, the USDA’s new rules focused on the integrity of agricultural materials. Fertilizers and pesticides from natural sources were allowed, while synthetic ones were mostly prohibited. In other words, the USDA defined “organic” to mean the lack of unnatural inputs.</p>
<p>When it came to more complicated questions about how livestock should be treated, though, <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Livestock%20Requirements.pdf">the rules were vague</a>. The law that came down from Congress offered the USDA little guidance on regulating organic animal welfare. </p>
<p>On conventional farms, animals are often raised in confined barns or cages, never seeing sunlight or breathing fresh air. The USDA’s organic regulations, which went into effect in 2002, required “access to pasture” for cows and “access to exercise areas, fresh air, and direct sunlight” for poultry. </p>
<p>What this meant in practice remained open to interpretation. Some dairy farms <a href="https://nyti.ms/2r68nBL">grazed cows for just a few months</a>, relegating them to dirt yards for the rest of the year. Large egg operations provided hens with small, concrete-floored porches.</p>
<p>And the regulations said nothing about tail docking and beak trimming. So organically raised pigs may still <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/opinion/the-unkindest-cut.html">have their tails amputated</a>. Organic chickens can be <a href="http://www.poultryhub.org/health/health-management/beak-trimming/">debeaked</a>.</p>
<h2>Defending the animals</h2>
<p>To improve how animals are treated on large-scale organic farms, animal welfare advocates have worked creatively within the USDA’s limited regulatory scope.</p>
<p>Because organic regulations define allowed versus prohibited materials, activists have sought to extend the prohibition on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to materials used in organic animal agriculture. Some have <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3891/organic-watchdog-criticizes-continued-use-of-synthetic-protein-in-organic-chicken-feed">lobbied federal regulators to prohibit the synthetic protein methionine</a> – a food supplement for birds raised in confinement – in organic farming. </p>
<p>If farmers cannot use methionine, their thinking goes, industrial-style organic chicken farms will no longer be viable. Farmers would have to raise chickens in smaller, outdoor operations. The birds would benefit.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/306189/original/file-20191210-95165-r1f09x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An ‘organic’ label may imply little about the animal’s quality of life.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Small-Dairies-Fight-Back/78735a81ac49487d8d85f858d42af39b/1/0">AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Activists have also pressured ethically minded consumers to demand better living conditions for animals. </p>
<p>An animal rights watchdog group called the Cornucopia Institute in 2014 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/11/think-your-milk-and-chicken-are-organic-these-aerial-farm-photos-will-make-you-think-again/">released aerial photos of large organic farms in the U.S.</a> The images showed gigantic buildings and barren yards in which dairy cows and egg-laying chickens spent their days – not the bucolic conditions that many consumers envision when they buy organic. </p>
<p>“Shoppers who passionately support the ideas and values represented by the organic label understandably feel betrayed,” the <a href="https://www.cornucopia.org/2014/12/investigation-factory-farms-producing-massive-quantities-organic-milk-eggs/">Cornucopia Institute press release</a> noted. </p>
<h2>New regulations</h2>
<p>The USDA defends its decision to withdraw the Obama-era organic animal welfare standards that would have enhanced outdoor access and prohibited tail docking and beak trimming. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/usda-sued-for-killing-new-rules-for-organic-livestock/">According to public statements by the agency</a>, it lacks authority under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act to implement such expansive rules. </p>
<p>My research confirms this. Congress gave the USDA a mandate to regulate synthetic inputs, not complex farming practices. There is very little in the 1990 federal organics law about animal welfare. </p>
<p>The Trump administration’s decision to kill protections for organically grown animals is now in court, <a href="https://ota.com/livestockpractices">following a lawsuit against the USDA filed by the Organic Trade Association</a>.</p>
<p>For concerned consumers, that means that serving an ethical holiday dinner requires some research. </p>
<p>Pigs and turkeys on some organic farms may well live their lives very differently from their conventionally raised cousins. But an “organic” label does not guarantee this. </p>
<p>[ <em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126410/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Haedicke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US federal regulations say little about how animals on organic farms should be treated. So if you’re planning to serve an ethical holiday dinner, you’ll have to do some research.Michael Haedicke, Associate Professor of Sociology, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1242462019-10-02T19:54:12Z2019-10-02T19:54:12ZGandhi’s 150th birthday: A little-remembered philosopher translated the Mahatma’s ideas of nonviolence for Americans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295258/original/file-20191002-49365-1workrb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">School children in India celebrate Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/India-Gandhi-Anniversary/1cc7cfa713bf4d67838cfc3bfabd334f/39/0">AP Photo/Altaf Qadri</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>October this year <a href="https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/gandhi-jayanti-2019-nation-set-for-grand-celebrations-to-mark-150th-birth-anniversary-of-mahatma-gandhi-all-you-need-to-know/1723257/">marks Mahatma Gandhi’s 150th birthday</a>. One of the 20th century’s most iconic figures, Gandhi’s legacy defines how many people think about peace, self-reflection and the path to a more just world. </p>
<p>Much less celebrated is Gandhi’s friend and follower, the American pacifist <a href="http://www.richardgregg.org/">Richard Bartlett Gregg</a>. </p>
<p>Gregg never made any significant speeches, so no grainy newsreels feature his words. And his books are not required reading in college courses.</p>
<p>Gregg has nonetheless been an influential figure in taking forward Gandhi’s message regarding the power of nonviolence. Gregg explained Gandhi’s ideas in a way that made sense to a Western audience. His books even <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/search-results?keyword=kosek">influenced</a> Martin Luther King Jr.’s understanding of nonviolent resistance. </p>
<h2>Discovering Gandhi</h2>
<p>My own interest in Gregg was something of an accident. I’m a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=oKQOnLQAAAAJ&hl=en">political scientist</a> with interest in peace activists as agents of change. I learned of Gregg a few years ago from a <a href="https://um-boston.academia.edu/JohnSaltmarsh/CurriculumVitae">colleague</a>, who told me that dozens of Gregg’s personal notebooks were <a href="https://www.walden.org/collection/richard-bartlett-gregg-papers/">moldering in a yurt</a> on a farm up in northern Maine. These journals soon became the subject of my scholarship.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295302/original/file-20191002-49369-11rq6na.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295302/original/file-20191002-49369-11rq6na.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=812&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295302/original/file-20191002-49369-11rq6na.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=812&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295302/original/file-20191002-49369-11rq6na.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=812&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295302/original/file-20191002-49369-11rq6na.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1021&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295302/original/file-20191002-49369-11rq6na.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1021&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295302/original/file-20191002-49369-11rq6na.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1021&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Richard Bartlett Gregg.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.richardgregg.org/">Photo courtesy of Kate Thompson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gregg was born to a Congregational minister in 1885. It was a time of rapid industrial growth and <a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/65ybd9yc9780252066900.html">industrial conflict</a>, as railroads and industrialization proceeded quickly. </p>
<p>Gregg discovered Gandhi in a journal article he read in a bookstore in Chicago in 1924. <a href="https://www.walden.org/collection/richard-bartlett-gregg-papers/">Deeply impressed</a> by Gandhi’s philosophy, at the age of 38, Gregg, a largely self-taught scholar, resolved to study with him in India. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.walden.org/collection/richard-bartlett-gregg-papers/">long letter</a> to his family explaining his decision to move to India, Gregg said he was so profoundly disenchanted with the violence of American labor relations and the American system that he sought alternatives. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295251/original/file-20191002-49389-5nx025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295251/original/file-20191002-49389-5nx025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295251/original/file-20191002-49389-5nx025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295251/original/file-20191002-49389-5nx025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295251/original/file-20191002-49389-5nx025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295251/original/file-20191002-49389-5nx025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295251/original/file-20191002-49389-5nx025.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mahatma Gandhi’s home in Sabarmati Ashram in the western state of Gujarat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-I-IND-APHSL30929-India-Ghandi-s-House/3f37e898ac5b45559b350fd262f4d8b3/77/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As I write in my forthcoming book, Gregg arrived at Sabarmati Ashram in the western Indian state of Gujarat in early February 1925. Gandhi, just released from prison, returned to his home at the ashram a few days after <a href="https://www.walden.org/collection/richard-bartlett-gregg-papers/">Gregg arrived</a>. </p>
<p>During an evening walk, <a href="https://www.walden.org/collection/richard-bartlett-gregg-papers/">Gregg writes</a> in his notes, he told Gandhi why he had come to India: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I felt at first awed by his presence, but he listened attentively to what I said and made me feel entirely at ease,” Gregg recalls. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was the start of a 23-year friendship that <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-nonviolence/49BF4884644A6B9B46849156721129B2">ended only with Gandhi’s death on Jan. 30, 1948</a>. </p>
<h2>Understanding nonviolence</h2>
<p>Gregg spent those years <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-nonviolence/49BF4884644A6B9B46849156721129B2">traveling, teaching</a> and studying in India. </p>
<p>At the time, a <a href="https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14288.html">pacifist</a> movement was emerging around the world. Pacifists are those who believe in confronting both domestic and international violence with peaceful resistance. </p>
<p>Gregg learned more deeply about Gandhi’s strategy of nonviolence. He wrote an important book, “<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-nonviolence/49BF4884644A6B9B46849156721129B2">The Power of Nonviolence</a>,” in his first four years with Gandhi, which <a href="https://www.uncpress.org/book/9780807859384/kingdom-to-commune">provided guidance</a> on how to make pacifism more effective. </p>
<p>Gregg <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-nonviolence/49BF4884644A6B9B46849156721129B2">argued</a> that onlookers should see the violent assailant, when confronted by nonviolent resistance, as “excessive and undignified – even a little ineffective.” </p>
<p>This was a tactic that Gandhi had used with enormous effect during the <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/mahatma-gandhi/9780231159593">Salt March</a> against Britain’s domination of India in 1930. The march demonstrated Gandhi’s ability to mobilize tens of thousands of Indians, who were forced to pay a salt tax to the British colonialists. </p>
<p>The peaceful demonstrators, who followed Gandhi to the Arabian Sea Coast to make their own salt, were beaten up and more than 60,000 arrested by British troops. The world watched, appalled at the <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/mahatma-gandhi/9780231159593">repression of the British colonial rule.</a></p>
<p>Learning from Gandhi, Gregg also wrote that nonviolent protests should serve as a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-nonviolence/49BF4884644A6B9B46849156721129B2">media spectacle</a>. He knew nonviolence was not passive resistance: It was an active planned strategy that required intense – even military-style – training, both physical and spiritual. </p>
<p>This was controversial and shocking to many pacifists. But Gregg <a href="https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/a-discipline-for-nonviolence.pdf">insisted that nonviolent protest represented a war of its own</a>. </p>
<h2>Simplicity and harmony</h2>
<p>Gregg learned Hindi during his time with Gandhi and came to understand the <a href="https://www.uncpress.org/book/9780807859384/kingdom-to-commune">Gandhian values</a> of simplicity, self-reliance and how to live in harmony with the world.</p>
<p>Gandhi encouraged each home to have its own spinning wheel so Indians would not have to depend on cloth made in British factories. Gregg embraced the philosophy behind each Indian home spinning its own <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.276422">khadi cloth</a> and became a leading advocate of organic farming and simple living. </p>
<p>Like Gandhi, Gregg believed that a peaceful world could only come about as humans developed inner peace and recognized their <a href="https://pendlehill.org/product/value-voluntary-simplicity/">harmony with nature</a>.</p>
<p>In 1936 Gregg published <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Value_of_Voluntary_Simplicity.html?id=Q_G0ZoDcMVwC">The Value of Voluntary Simplicity</a>, a term he coined while serving as director of the Quaker retreat at Pendle Hill in Pennsylvania. In that post, he continued to build on Gandhi’s belief in simple living and harmony with nature as part of the true path to peace. </p>
<p>He was not, however, a Quaker; he remained deeply Christian. </p>
<p>Although he rejected Marxism and Soviet-style socialism, Gregg came to believe that the only solution to violence and injustice lay in a complete <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/power-of-nonviolence/49BF4884644A6B9B46849156721129B2">transformation</a> of production and consumption.</p>
<h2>What Gregg brought to America</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295256/original/file-20191002-49383-1l9jd3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295256/original/file-20191002-49383-1l9jd3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295256/original/file-20191002-49383-1l9jd3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295256/original/file-20191002-49383-1l9jd3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295256/original/file-20191002-49383-1l9jd3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295256/original/file-20191002-49383-1l9jd3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295256/original/file-20191002-49383-1l9jd3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. removes his shoes before entering Mahatma Gandhi’s shrine in New Delhi, India, on Feb. 11, 1959.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-International-News-India-INDIA-/de9c31972de4da11af9f0014c2589dfb/75/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is no doubt that Martin Luther King Jr. was <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/search-results?keyword=kosek">aware</a> of Gandhi’s ideas from other sources. But Gregg’s book, “The Power of Nonviolence,” deeply affected how he thought about passive resistance. Gregg put these ideas in a context that more closely fit the American civil rights struggle. </p>
<p>I argue, King’s writing during this period carried very similar themes and perspectives to those laid out by Gregg. King made the distinction that nonviolent resistance <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/acts-of-conscience/9780231144193">was not cowardice</a> but rather a brave act that required great training.</p>
<p>In 1959, King wrote the <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/acts-of-conscience/9780231144193">foreword</a> for “The Power of Nonviolence,” having already become deeply familiar with Gregg’s earlier editions of the work. It went on to be published in <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/acts-of-conscience/9780231144193">108 editions in six languages</a>. </p>
<p>On the 150th anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, Gregg’s role in translating the Mahatma – meaning a great soul – for a Western audience and in being an early advocate of simplicity is worth commemorating, too.</p>
<p>How deeply he understood Gandhi’s ideas is evident in Gandhi’s own words, recorded in a <a href="https://www.walden.org/collection/richard-bartlett-gregg-papers/">personal letter</a> to him from a friend in India: </p>
<p>“If you understood me as well as Richard Gregg does,” he once said to a group of Indian independence leaders, “I would die happy.” </p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Charles Wooding does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Mahatma Gandhi is an iconic figure for the world. Richard Barlett Gregg helped introduce him to Americans.John Charles Wooding, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1230902019-09-10T20:04:32Z2019-09-10T20:04:32ZClimate explained: regenerative farming can help grow food with less impact<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291401/original/file-20190909-175696-gf9bci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C285%2C5276%2C3094&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Returning nutrients, including animal feces, to the land is important to maintain the soil's capacity to sequester carbon.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/climate-explained-74664">Climate Explained</a></strong> is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.</em> </p>
<p><em>If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>I would like to know to what extent regenerative agriculture practices could play a role in reducing carbon emissions and producing food, including meat, in the future. From what I have read it seems to offer much, but I am curious about how much difference it would make if all of our farmers moved to this kind of land management practice. Or even most of them. – a question from Virginia</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>To identify and quantify the potential of regenerative agriculture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we first have to define what it means. If regenerative practices maintain or improve production, and reduce wasteful losses on the farm, then the answer tends to be yes. But to what degree is it better, and can we verify this yet?</p>
<p>Let’s first define how regenerative farming differs from other ways of farming. For example, North Americans listening to <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science">environmentally conscious media</a> would be likely to define most of New Zealand pastoral agriculture systems as regenerative, when compared to the tilled fields of crops they see across most of their continent. </p>
<p>If milk and meat-producing animals are not farmed on pasture, farmers have to grow grains to feed them and transport the fodder to the animals, often over long distances. It’s hard to miss that the transport is inefficient, but easier to miss that nutrients excreted by the animals as manure or urine can’t go back to the land that fed them.</p>
<h2>Healthy soils</h2>
<p>Returning nutrients to the land really matters because these build up soil, and grow more plants. We can’t sequester carbon in soil without returning nutrients to the soil.</p>
<p>New Zealand’s style of pastoral agricultural <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/003231870806000107">does this well</a>, and we’re still improving as we focus on reducing nutrient losses to water. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-launches-plan-to-revive-the-health-of-lakes-and-rivers-123079">New Zealand launches plan to revive the health of lakes and rivers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our pastoral soils tend to have <a href="https://doi.org/10.4141/S04-082">as much carbon</a> as they once did under forest, but concerns have been raised about <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.11.012">carbon losses in some regions</a>. Yet, we do still have two big problems.</p>
<p>First, the animals that efficiently digest tough plants – including cows, sheep, and goats – all belch the greenhouse gas methane. This is a direct result of their special stomachs, and chewing their cud. Therefore, farms will continue to have high greenhouse gas emissions per unit of meat and milk they produce. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/">IPCC</a>) report <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49238749">emphasised this</a>, noting <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf">that changing diets can reduce emissions</a>.</p>
<p>The second problem is worst in <a href="https://www.dairynz.co.nz/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gases-in-the-dairy-industry/">dairying</a>. When a cow lifts its tail to urinate, litres of urine saturate a small area. The nitrogen content in this patch exceeds what plants and soil can retain, and the excess is lost to water as nitrate and to the air, partly as the powerful, long-lived greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. </p>
<h2>Defining regenerative</h2>
<p>Regenerative agriculture lacks a clear definition, but there is an opportunity for innovation around its core concept, which is a more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.269">circular economy</a>. This means taking steps to reduce or recover losses, including those of nutrients and greenhouse gases.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/regenerative-agriculture-can-make-farmers-stewards-of-the-land-again-110570">Regenerative agriculture can make farmers stewards of the land again</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of antibiotics and synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, could potentially include regenerative agriculture. Organics once had the same innovative status, but now has <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/07/11/673094/when-less-is-better">a clear business model and supply chain linked to a price premium</a> achieved through certification.</p>
<p>The price premium and regulation linked to certification can limit the <a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00886434/document">redesign of the organic agricultural systems</a> to incremental improvements, limiting the inclusion of regenerative concepts. It also means that emission studies of organic agriculture may not reveal the potential benefits of regenerative agriculture. </p>
<p>Instead, the potential for a redesign of New Zealand’s style of pastoral dairy farming around regenerative principles provides a useful example of how progress might work. Pastures could shift from ryegrass and clover to a more diverse, more deeply rooted mix of alternate species such as chicory, plantains, lupins and other grasses. This system change would have three main benefits.</p>
<h2>Win-win-win</h2>
<p>The first big win in farming is always enhanced production, and this is possible by better matching the ideal diet for cows. High performance ryegrass-clover pastures contain too little energy and too much protein. Diverse pastures fix this, allowing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.01.009">potential increases in production</a>. </p>
<p>A second benefit will result when protein content of pasture doesn’t exceed what cows need to produce milk, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-016-1442-1">reducing</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.04.023">diluting</a> the nitrogen concentrated in the urine patches that are a main source of nitrous oxide emissions and impacts on water. </p>
<p>A third set of gains can result if the new, more diverse pastures are better at capturing and storing nutrients in soil, usually through deeper and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2463-z">more vigorous root growth</a>. These three gains interrelate and create options for redesign of the farm system. This is best done by farmers, although <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.03.015">models</a> may help put the three pieces together into a win-win-win.</p>
<p>Whether you’re interested in local beef in Virginia, or the future of New Zealand’s dairy industry, the principles that define regenerative agriculture look promising for redesigning farming to reduce emissions. They may prove simpler than <a href="https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/currently-science/climate-change-new-zealand-farms-low-emission-future">agriculture’s wider search</a> for new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including <a href="https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/key-step-forward-for-game-changing-grass/">genetically engineering ryegrass</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Troy Baisden receives funding from Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund. He is a Principal Investigator in Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence on Complexity and Networks.</span></em></p>Regenerative agriculture has the potential to build production and reducing pollution, but it needs a clearer definition.Troy Baisden, Professor and Chair in Lake and Freshwater Sciences, University of WaikatoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1145942019-07-11T20:19:09Z2019-07-11T20:19:09ZFriday essay: the Australians who pioneered self-sufficiency, generations before Nimbin<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283178/original/file-20190709-51268-eadqpa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Whitlanders in the 1940s. Established in 1941 near the base of Victoria's Mount Buffalo, this Catholic community celebrated the 'dignity of manual labour' and was led by a charismatic athlete and former judge's associate, Ray Triado.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joe Pisani</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The term “self-sufficiency” commonly evokes images of communes, yurts and 1970s hippies, most likely living off the land in northern New South Wales. More recently, it has been linked to an explosion of interest in solar powered “off-grid” living, tiny houses, ethical food networks and complementary health practices, along with a hipster-driven return to the artisanal and hand-made. </p>
<p>But these are just a small part of a much larger story. Australians have, in fact, dreamt of going back-to-the-land since the latter part of the 19th century. Those who embraced an ethic of self-sufficiency included anarchists, suffragists seeking opportunities for unemployed women, Catholic agrarians wanting to nurture both the soul and the soil, and a grassroots collection of organic farmers trying to bring attention to “Mother Earth”. </p>
<p>Each of these pioneers looked beyond “unhealthy” cities to the land as a source of salvation, seeking answers and alternatives to some of the problems of industrial modernity, and sharing in a vision of “the good life”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283189/original/file-20190709-51278-14zxv02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A century before today’s ‘off-grid’, tiny house fans, Australians sought solace by going back to the land.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dirty, corrupt cities</h2>
<p>The story begins in the late 19th century when urban reformers across North America, England, Europe and Australia started to identify a decline in societal values and standards, sparked by economic insecurity and rapid social change. With growing anxiety around “dirty and corrupt” cities, a transported image of the English “rural idyll” became a ready source of inspiration. </p>
<p>In Australia, this idea was equally shaped by the romance of bush ballads, alongside the popular landscape art movement. But rather than simply gaze at the landscape or go bush-walking on weekends, a number of urban Utopians wanted to get back to nature, hoping to reimagine and reconstruct society.</p>
<p>David Andrade was one of them. Born to Jewish merchants in Collingwood in 1859, he grew up with an acute sensitivity to the inequalities he saw around him. After co-founding the first Anarchist Club in Australia and spending years publishing and speaking across Melbourne, Andrade came up with a bold vision he called “Social Pioneering”. It envisaged opening up “agricultural, pastoral and industrial pursuits” for people with no access to land, bringing them closer to nature and basic subsistence living to avoid the dangerous economic fluctuations of the market.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283177/original/file-20190709-51262-n9i9d3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">David Andrade pictured in the 1890s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.marxists.org/glossary/people/a/n.htm</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1893, during a worsening economic depression, Andrade established “Liberty Hall” in central Melbourne. This radical venture housed a progressive “bookery”, the earliest vegetarian restaurant and hosted numerous lectures on topics like socialism, mesmerism, vaccination, free thought and spiritualism. </p>
<p>Andrade laid out plans for a co-operative community called “Freedom” on Lake Boga along the Murray River as an “enlightened salve for poor city wage-slaves”. </p>
<p>However, with little support for such a wild venture, in 1894, he and his wife Emily instead moved to the newly opened settlement of Sassafras in the nearby Dandenong Ranges with their three children, and a fourth on the way. Under a government scheme known as Village or Closer Settlement, which opened up large tracts of arable but often difficult land to the urban unemployed, the Andrades were among thousands who looked to small-scale farming on small rural “homesteads”. </p>
<p>Sadly their dream of agricultural independence and collective Utopia remained elusive. In 1897, devastating fires burnt out the settlement. David was committed to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarra_Bend_Asylum">Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum</a> soon after with his “reason having been broken down”. Emily and the children were forced to move back to the city and much of the radicalism of Andrade’s pioneering ventures soon faded. </p>
<p>Still, many others continued to battle capricious natural elements, poor soils, and the harsh realities of making a living from the land, buoyed by the potential of subsistence agriculture and the autonomy of working for oneself.</p>
<h2>Womanly but not weak</h2>
<p>While it was acceptable for both urban and rural women to garden domestically, it was hard for women to make a living from their gardens in the cities. Away from city dwellers’ conventions and expectations, they had more luck.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279704/original/file-20190617-158917-1fj4tbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Horticulture for Ladies. The Australasian, 18 Feb, 1899.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Australasian</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In December 1892, suffragist Mary Sanger Evans began promoting silk growing, or sericulture, as an ideal vocation for “womanly agriculture” pursuits as the Depression set in. Defying the view that “real men do real farming”, sericulture was promoted as a feminine practice. Soon after, Evans formalised her ideas into the Women’s Cooperative Silk Growing and Industrial Association. It had a charter to</p>
<blockquote>
<p>open up new fields of productive industry for workless women of all classes, from the refined gentlewoman, thrown perhaps suddenly to depend on her own exertions, to the factory girl or motherless waif – industries healthful and elevating, and, if properly carried out, highly profitable – all of them too, productive from the soil direct.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With the support of prominent women such as the wife of NSW Governor Robert Duff, the organisation purchased a 44-acre farm lease at Wyee, north of Sydney. They called it “Wirawidar”, the Indigenous name for “woman’s ground”. Continuing to farm until 1901 during drought and difficult economic conditions, their efforts inspired urban women to look away from the cities towards the power of the soil.</p>
<p>With the support of her brother Justice Henry Higgins, suffrage activist Ina Higgins also realised that women could gain “autonomy and freedom” from a rural smallholding. After years agitating for a course to be made available for women at the Burnley Horticulture College, Ina became one of its first graduates in 1900. She then became Australia’s <a href="https://www.slv.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/La-Trobe-Journal-99-Sandra-Pullman.pdf">first professional female landscape gardener</a>. </p>
<p>With the support of fellow suffrage and peace activists Vida Goldstein, Adela Pankhurst and Cecilia Ann John, Ina set up a farm in Mordialloc on the fringe of metropolitan Melbourne in 1913. Members of the Women’s Rural Industries Cooperative worked variously in an orchard, a nursery, raising poultry and horses, bee-keeping, and growing flowers and vegetables. Like Wirawidar, it was established for single or divorced women to provide for themselves, their children, and earn an income.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279703/original/file-20190617-158967-1qdzybd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=760&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ina Higgins in the garden at ‘Killenna’, 1919.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Palmer Papers, National Library of Australia, PIC Album 885/7 #PIC/P778/562</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Paying no attention to class or dress dictums, they scandalised the public with their “rational dress” of a “brown knickerbocker suit.” While Higgins gave instruction on horticulture, the press reported that one co-op member, Cecelia John, was “as good as a man” since she could “drive a car, paint a house, erect poultry sheds, and [is] planning on turning a corner of the big barn into a bathroom at the least expense.” </p>
<p>With only six permanent workers, the farm managed to survive and succeed until the end of the war, but failed due to lack of capital and shortages of water. Higgins later continued educating young women in horticulture at Dookie Agricultural College, and paved the way for future “women of the soil” such as renowned landscaper <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/walling-edna-margaret-11946">Edna Walling</a>.</p>
<h2>The gospel of simplicity</h2>
<p>During the 1930s a “lure of the pastoral” found popular resurgence through a nation-wide Country Life Movement. It united public and political sentiment, reaffirming the moral and political superiority of rural areas and small towns. </p>
<p>Within this push, aspiring political activist Bob Santamaria helped launch the National Catholic Rural Movement in 1938. He advocated for a form of “cottage Catholicism” within a new social order that was neither capitalist nor communist, but would bring the “countryside back to Christ”. The movement believed that in order to find the “true” source of one’s religious being, one had to embrace “honest, wholesome toil”.</p>
<p>Out of these ideas emerged the agricultural community of Whitlands. Established in 1941 near the base of Victoria’s Mount Buffalo, it celebrated the “dignity of manual labour” within a strong monastic tradition. By the end of the war, its valiant and charismatic leader Ray Triado had attracted dozens of young urban Catholics – men, women and their families – away from their comfortable city lives.</p>
<p>An acclaimed track athlete, and later an associate to a High Court Judge, at 30, Triado traded this world for a life of hunting, building and farming. A troubadour and storyteller, his community was built around simple daily rituals, of song, prayer and work. Numbering a few dozen in its later years, a variety of people were drawn to create a “world of the village around and permeated by God’s presence.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283176/original/file-20190709-51262-czbe3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ray Triado in the 1940s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Graeme Butler</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whitlands quickly became notorious amongst Melbourne’s high society for its radical departure from comfortable, conventional Catholicism, and its rejection of the materialistic culture of modern Australia. Some, such as regular visitor and journalist Niall Brennan supported the program and reported in the Catholic press of male “monks” in overalls, working shirts and shorts who “chanted Matins, Lauds and Prime, milked cows, cut wood and lit fires”. </p>
<p>Single women were also drawn to the farm as they saw a vital opportunity to escape the monotony of urban domesticity. Though the women maintained separate living quarters, such a scandalous situation led to calls from within Catholic institutions to dissolve the community.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283179/original/file-20190709-51288-1oo0ehq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The chapel at the old Whitlands site, which survives today.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1950, a dozen dedicated Whitlands members made a “pilgrimage” of over 250km from the farm to Melbourne to petition Archbishop Mannix against its closure. They succeeded in keeping the farm open – but the early idealism was soon lost. Many members moved on, while a few families settled nearby.</p>
<h2>Soil and Civilisation</h2>
<p>Long before the rise of the modern environment movement, farmer <a href="http://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/mitchell-sibyl-elyne-18137">Elyne Mitchell </a>(author of The Silver Brumby) published Soil and Civilisation in 1946. This book was an early attempt to explain to Australians the importance of the connection between human and ecosystem health. In addressing problems facing industrial agriculture and society at large, she wrote that, divorced from his roots, (i.e the earth) “man loses his psychic stability.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283193/original/file-20190709-51312-k72tw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Soil was at the heart of many later self sufficiency movements.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Her sentiment echoed a growing movement of farmers across southern Australia that had united from the mid-1940s through the Living Soil Association in Tasmania, Australian Organic Farming and Gardening Society of NSW and the Victorian Compost Society.</p>
<p>Drawing on the work of British organic pioneers such as Lord Albert Howard, they argued that all organic wastes, such as plant matter and animal manure, must be returned to the soil to decay and replenish soil humus. They also felt that nature’s “law of return” could be used as a model to alleviate some of the problems faced by ever growing, all consuming cities.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283184/original/file-20190709-51258-ci7ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Editions of the Organic Farming Digest from the late 1940s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Challenging the dominant vision of agricultural progress, particularly the use of artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides, the organic growers looked to the model of the small, family farm for salvation. Though not strictly a call “back-to-the-land” since many were already farming, or working their suburban gardens, these campaigns encouraged ordinary people and producers to consider the origins of their food, and contemplate the wider outcomes of its production. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283180/original/file-20190709-51278-dzsmmu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Banner for Victorian Compost News, March 1950.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Michael J. Roads was one of these early proponents. He had moved from England to Tasmania in 1963 with his family. After years farming cattle, Roads saw how problems of greed, the rapid commercialisation of life, and a spiral of harmful farming practices were affecting both individuals and society as a whole. </p>
<p>In 1970 he published <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Roads#Publications">A Guide to Organic Living in Australia</a>. It reflected on a growing movement “back to the earth” seeking solace in the bush and the simplicity of self-provision. In it, he shared his own story of spiritual transformation that had occurred when he began to revere the power of nature. </p>
<p>Spreading his message that nature, the soil and human happiness are inextricably linked, Roads continues to publish, travel the world, and teach others the insights he learned as a small farmer on a secluded mountain in Tasmania.</p>
<p>Roads was joined soon after by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren who transformed this philosophy into the practice of <a href="https://holmgren.com.au/about-permaculture/">Permaculture</a>. In turn, it helped motivate the counter-cultural movement as growing food organically for self-sufficiency became a critical way to rebel and achieve social change. </p>
<p>The 1973 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_Festival">Nimbin Aquarius Festival</a> established self-sufficiency as central to its political and social doctrine. From this point on, personal self-sufficiency was seen as a means of survival, but also of achieving broader political, social and environmental reform. It continues to stand for a way of reducing consumption, getting back to basics, engaging with DIY projects, using renewable energies, and fostering community networks today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114594/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Goldlust does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Long before 70s hippies and hipster artisans, Australians were seeking solace by going back to the land. They ranged from anarchists to suffragists to Catholic agrarians.Rachel Goldlust, Phd candidate in environmental history, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1159632019-06-20T19:02:06Z2019-06-20T19:02:06ZWhat motivates ecopreneurs?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280540/original/file-20190620-149810-14pss3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C94%2C5760%2C3733&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/cf2EE8O2I5k">Markus Spiske/Unsplash</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Half a century ago, India, Mexico and a host of countries had a green revolution. A combination of high-yielding seeds, fertilizers and irrigation combined to boost crop productivity sufficiently to feed a fast-growing population. Now the organic farming revolution is trying to turn things on its head. After 50 years, why would farmers want to go and stop using high-yielding seeds, fertilizers and herbicides? The answer is all around us, from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-extinction-united-nations.html">collapsing biodiversity</a> to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/pesticides-everyday-products-toxics-guide">negative impact of pesticides on human health</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534819810212142">Pastakia (1998)</a> was one of the first to use the term “ecopreneurs”, referring to entrepreneurs who are sensitive to ecology. Well-known examples including the Body Shop and Ben and Jerry’s. The motivations vary, but can include wanting to create value for society or preserve the environment or animal life. </p>
<p>With the growing awareness of climate change since the 1990s, its links with natural and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/21/climate-change-cause-of-most-under-reported-humanitarian-crises-report-finds">humanitarian catastrophes</a>, and the urgent need for sustainable development, change is in the air. According to the Pew Research Center, there are now more than <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/10/organic-farming-is-on-the-rise-in-the-u-s/">14,000 organic farmers in the United States</a>. In France, <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/06/04/la-grande-bascule-vers-le-bio-de-l-agriculture-francaise_5471208_3234.html">more than 5,000 farms switched to organic methods in 2018</a>, a record, and nearly 10% are now certified organic. </p>
<p>There’s also a social movement toward consuming less, as indicated by the literature on degrowth (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915000609?via%3Dihub">Bloemmen, Bobulescu, Le, Vitari, 2015</a>). Somewhat paradoxically, this could translate to a huge demand for, say, electric vehicles and organic food. But would consumers be willing to pay more? Research indicates that some consumers may perceive <a href="https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-pense-t-on-que-les-produits-bio-sont-moins-bons-112979">organic products as being lower quality</a>. </p>
<h2>From the producers’ point of view</h2>
<p>Together with researchers Priyanka Jayashankar and Howard Van Auken of Iowa State University, we took a step in the other direction, looking at producers rather than consumers. If producers are rational and if efficiency, productivity and economies of scale all argue for commercial farming in continuation of the so-called green revolution, then why would ecopreneurs switch to organic farming? Are they irrational, or do they feel that there is a niche of customers who would pay more for bio and that this would allow them to prosper?</p>
<p>Our literature review showed five possible sources of motivation for ecopreneurs: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Economics: they feel that a profitable niche market exists.</p></li>
<li><p>Environment: a desire to promote biodiversity or save the soil, for example.</p></li>
<li><p>Socio-ethical values: wanting helping the community.</p></li>
<li><p>Structural pressures: from the community to the entrepreneur.</p></li>
<li><p>Social support: to help other organic farmers. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Ecopreneurs, organic farmers in particular, were interested in creating impact by adding value – economic, social, and environmental, as well as to livestock. To understand what motivations determines if ecopreneurs are successful in creating impact, we contacted organic farmers in Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, and Missouri, and obtained 113 usable responses. The average farmer of our sample was 50 years old had been using organic methods for 13 years on average.</p>
<h2>Diverse motivations, unexpected results</h2>
<p>The results, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsc.2235">published in December 2018</a>,
were unexpected.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>All five motives were important to different farmers. However, the “social support” motive was the most important, followed by socio-ethical values and economic motivations. Ironically, the environment came fourth, just ahead of community pressure.</p></li>
<li><p>When we asked what kind of impact they were creating, once again they replied that they were creating value for the society. What is puzzling is that they did not think they were having much impact on the environment or livestock. Yet they seemed to make good money.</p></li>
<li><p>The relationship between motivation and perceived value creation was not always as expected. For example, we thought that people who were environmentally motivated would feel they are making an impact on the environment. Such a simple relationship true only in one case, however: organic farmers who stressed socio-ethical motives felt they were creating social impact. Unexpectedly, only farmers who emphasized economic motives felt they were creating environmental impact. So without being motivated by the environment, they feel they are helping it.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Finally, all the other motivations do not influence the perception of the organic farmers that they are adding value. For example, those with financial motivations do not seem to feel they are getting better profits. The case for organic farming may still be the domain of mavericks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115963/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arvind Ashta ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>Organic farmers are entrepreneurs who are sensitive to ecology, yet their convictions can sometimes seem counter-intuitive. New research indicates some surprising motivations.Arvind Ashta, Professor Finance and Control, Burgundy School of Business Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1128212019-05-06T21:18:39Z2019-05-06T21:18:39ZPesticide research must stay transparent and independent<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267197/original/file-20190402-177175-1b67zir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Workers spray pesticides on strawberry fields. Most of the studies that examine the effects of pesticides are funded by the chemical's producer.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Few people would make an important purchase on trust alone. The same logic applies to pesticides. </p>
<p>Getting the best scientific information about the safety of pesticides can be challenging. There is almost always some uncertainty in the science, making it sometimes difficult to navigate the research on pesticides. </p>
<p>I have been researching environmental contaminants for 25 years, focusing on situations where chemical products are found at above-normal concentrations in the environment, and trying to determine when they pose a real environmental threat. </p>
<h2>Unbiased study design</h2>
<p>The design of a scientific experiment influences its results. The experiment can be engineered to demonstrate a chemical’s positive effects or its environmental impact, depending on the desired outcome. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260227/original/file-20190221-195883-1xlpwga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260227/original/file-20190221-195883-1xlpwga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260227/original/file-20190221-195883-1xlpwga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260227/original/file-20190221-195883-1xlpwga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260227/original/file-20190221-195883-1xlpwga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260227/original/file-20190221-195883-1xlpwga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260227/original/file-20190221-195883-1xlpwga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Potatoes contaminated by insects. A poor risk analysis can have disastrous effects on a crop yield.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, if I did a small pilot study on a number of randomly selected farms, I could determine after my first season which sites showed the most (or the least) variation. The next year, when I do a more thorough study, if my sites are truly chosen at random, the results won’t be misleading. </p>
<p>But if I have selectively chosen certain types of sites to obtain a clearer result, and not mentioned it, I will have introduced a sampling bias that may be very difficult to detect when others evaluate the quality of my research. The results may appear valid, but they will in fact have been manipulated to promote the desired results. </p>
<h2>Industry funding</h2>
<p>When perusing the scientific literature on pesticides, it is difficult to screen out what has been designed objectively and what has been funded by industry with a potentially biased intent. The recent obligation of scientists to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajim.20357">declare conflicts of interest has been essential to trust the results</a>. Many of the available studies on pesticides are funded and designed by the companies that produce the chemicals. Companies that do a large number of studies may set aside the results of some studies, but widely distribute the results of others.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260230/original/file-20190221-195892-17fjx6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260230/original/file-20190221-195892-17fjx6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260230/original/file-20190221-195892-17fjx6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260230/original/file-20190221-195892-17fjx6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260230/original/file-20190221-195892-17fjx6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260230/original/file-20190221-195892-17fjx6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260230/original/file-20190221-195892-17fjx6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pesticides being spread in a field. Most pesticide research is funded by the producers of the chemical products.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The pesticide industry is more inclined to fund researchers who produce results that are useful to them than those who raise the awareness of potential problems. Those who work on ways to reduce pesticide use or on the benefits of alternative agricultural approaches <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/agricultural-minister-defends-whistleblower-firing-1.4999997">may find it harder to find funding and may even be in trouble from governmental agencies</a>.</p>
<p>Worse still, some researchers working on the environmental impact of pesticides may face attacks by industry on their scientific credibility, ethics and even their personal lives. For example, Tyrone Hayes, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, experienced numerous setbacks. His work on the herbicide atrazine was challenged by Syngenta, the large agribusiness that makes the chemical and <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation">attempted to discredit him and invalidate his published work</a>.</p>
<h2>Changing dangers</h2>
<p>Pesticides are designed to be toxic and used to eliminate pests. Herbicides target weeds, insecticides control insects and rodenticides target harmful rodents. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260038/original/file-20190220-148536-17xvkzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260038/original/file-20190220-148536-17xvkzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260038/original/file-20190220-148536-17xvkzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260038/original/file-20190220-148536-17xvkzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260038/original/file-20190220-148536-17xvkzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260038/original/file-20190220-148536-17xvkzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260038/original/file-20190220-148536-17xvkzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Desert locusts wreak havoc on horticultural farms and create headaches for farmers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, given their inherent toxicity, they are never fully selective —all pesticides have the potential to harm plants, fish, insects and birds. Some affect predators, such as marine mammals, eagles and polar bears, and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/persistent-organic-pollutants-global-issue-global-response">many are persistent organic pollutants</a>. </p>
<p>The challenge for regulators is to figure out how much of the chemical will have a significant deleterious impact on significant individuals or organisms. The scientist can determine the number of species that will be affected and to what extent, but the level of acceptable impact is often a societal decision.</p>
<h2>Uncertainties in risk estimates</h2>
<p>When a manufacturer markets a new pesticide, it must produce several risk assessment studies. Toxicological studies need to address a pesticide’s effects on humans; ecotoxicological research shows its interactions with the environment. These studies determine maximum doses and threshold criteria to preserve environmental quality in drinking water, soils or aquatic life.</p>
<p>This exercise determines the highest possible concentrations that can be allowed without adverse effects on human health and the environment, and it must be done on the basis of quality scientific studies free from conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>This doesn’t always happen. Reportedly objective research on glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, was <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/monsanto-roundup-health-canada-1.4896311">secretly revised by agrochemical giant Monsanto</a>.</p>
<p>If there’s any doubt about the environmental or health risks associated with a chemical, regulatory agencies should use the <a href="http://www.cela.ca/collections/pollution/precautionary-principle">precautionary principle</a> to avoid causing irreparable damage. This approach, however, is often in conflict with the U.S. approach of not regulating a chemical until the damage is demonstrated and proven to prevent any legal challenge. </p>
<p>It’s also important to understand that as scientists do more studies and explore more situations, they are more likely to find a species that is particularly sensitive to the pesticide or identify conditions that aggravate its toxicity. The criteria to protect health and the environment almost always evolve over time and the regulations become tighter. </p>
<p>This is why we see pesticides introduced and then banned years later. For example, a century ago, lead arsenate was used to control insects. When DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was introduced in the 1940s, scientists expected it would be more efficient and without the risks associated with arsenic. </p>
<p>By the 1970s, however, DDT was banned in the United States, based on its harmful effects on wildlife — it killed eagles and falcons — and affected human health. The agriculture industry then switched to organophosphate pesticides. These did not have the same risks as DDT, but were later found to have <a href="https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1316102914633/1316103004743">neurotoxic effects on children</a>, even at low concentrations. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260039/original/file-20190220-148513-mtr547.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260039/original/file-20190220-148513-mtr547.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260039/original/file-20190220-148513-mtr547.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260039/original/file-20190220-148513-mtr547.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260039/original/file-20190220-148513-mtr547.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260039/original/file-20190220-148513-mtr547.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260039/original/file-20190220-148513-mtr547.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">DDT is still being sprayed in villages in Thailand. The product kills mosquitoes responsible for malaria, encephalitis, dengue fever and Zika, but it has proven health risks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Today, we use neonicotinoids and glyphosate, currently the most widely used herbicide in the world. More than one-third of food samples tested by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency between 2015 and 2018 <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cfia-report-glyphosate-1.4070275">contained glyphosate residues</a>.</p>
<h2>Beware of dogmas</h2>
<p>We must also be careful not to fall into a dogmatic approach that rejects the use of all synthetic chemicals. A distinction must be made between cases in which moderate and minimized pesticide use can be beneficial without causing significant impact on human health or the environment. </p>
<p>We must also listen to alternative agronomic approaches that reduce pesticide dependence. Impartial information should be provided to agricultural producers. </p>
<p>We should not expect stakeholders whose livelihood depends on the sale of pesticides to be objective on the debate between conventional pesticide-based agronomic approaches and novel approaches that might be economical and efficient but would lower sales of pesticides and their revenues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112821/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sébastien Sauvé receives funding from several government agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels as well as funding in partnership with the private sector (Veolia, ThermoSisher, BlueLeas Inc). He was also a member of the David Suzuki Foundation's Scientific Circle.</span></em></p>Most studies on the use of pesticides are funded by those that produce the chemicals but only independent research can inform us about the best agricultural practices.Sébastien Sauvé, Professeur, Université de MontréalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1015852018-10-10T10:49:30Z2018-10-10T10:49:30ZOrganic farming with gene editing: An oxymoron or a tool for sustainable agriculture?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233152/original/file-20180822-149463-1yjj5bp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many farmers cultivating organic crops believe that genetically modified crops pose threats to human health.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/organic-vegetables-on-wood-farmer-holding-529914715">mythja/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A University of California, Berkeley professor stands at the front of the room, delivering her invited talk about the potential of genetic engineering. Her audience, full of organic farming advocates, listens uneasily. She notices a man get up from his seat and move toward the front of the room. Confused, the speaker pauses mid-sentence as she watches him bend over, reach for the power cord, and unplug the projector. The room darkens and silence falls. So much for listening to the ideas of others.</p>
<p>Many organic advocates claim that genetically engineered crops are <a href="https://www.downtoearth.org/label-gmos/risks-genetic-engineering">harmful</a> to human health, the environment, and the farmers who work with them. Biotechnology advocates fire back that genetically engineered crops are <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/23395">safe</a>, reduce insecticide use, and allow farmers in developing countries to produce enough food to feed themselves and their families. </p>
<p>Now, sides are being chosen about whether the new gene editing technology, CRISPR, is really just “<a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-2-0-foods-coming-your-way-will-they-be-labeled/">GMO 2.0</a>” or a helpful <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2018.04.013">new tool</a> to speed up the plant breeding process. In July, the European Union’s Court of Justice <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=204387&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=44391">ruled</a> that crops made with CRISPR will be classified as genetically engineered. In the United States, meanwhile, the regulatory system is <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation">drawing distinctions</a> between genetic engineering and specific uses of genome editing.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For many, perception of genetically modified foods has changed little from those of this protester dressed as a genetically altered ‘Killer Tomato’ marching through downtown San Diego, June 24, 2001.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-California-Unite-/ef3ae3e1ede6da11af9f0014c2589dfb/5/0">Joe Cavaretta/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I am a plant molecular biologist and appreciate the awesome potential of both CRISPR and genetic engineering technologies. But I don’t believe that pits me against the goals of organic agriculture. In fact, biotechnology can help meet these goals. And while rehashing the arguments about genetic engineering seems counterproductive, genome editing may draw both sides to the table for a healthy conversation. To understand why, it’s worth digging into the differences between genome editing with CRISPR and genetic engineering.</p>
<h2>What’s the difference between genetic engineering, CRISPR and mutation breeding?</h2>
<p>Opponents argue that CRISPR is a <a href="https://foe.org/news/2017-01-usda-proposal-for-biotech-regulations-falls-short/">sneaky way</a> to trick the public into eating genetically engineered foods. It is tempting to toss CRISPR and genetic engineering into the same bucket. But even “genetic engineering” and “CRISPR” are too broad to convey what is happening on the genetic level, so let’s look closer.</p>
<p>In one type of genetic engineering, a gene from an unrelated organism can be introduced into a plant’s genome. For example, much of the <a href="http://bteggplant.cornell.edu/content/news/blog/director-general-bari-remarks-about-bt-brinjal">eggplant grown in Bangladesh</a> incorporates a gene from a common bacterium. This gene makes a protein called Bt that is harmful to insects. By putting that gene inside the eggplant’s DNA, the plant itself becomes lethal to eggplant-eating insects and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600850">decreases the need for insecticides</a>. Bt is safe for humans. It’s like how chocolate makes dogs sick, but doesn’t affect us. </p>
<p>Another type of genetic engineering can move a gene from one variety of a plant species into another variety of that same species. For example, researchers identified a gene in wild apple trees that makes them resistant to <a href="https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/prokaryotes/Pages/FireBlight.aspx">fire blight.</a>They <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143980">moved that gene</a> into the “Gala Galaxy” apple to make it resistant to disease. However, this new apple variety has not been commercialized. </p>
<p>Scientists are unable to direct where in the genome a gene is inserted with traditional genetic engineering, although they use DNA sequencing to identify the location after the fact. </p>
<p>In contrast, CRISPR is a tool of precision.</p>
<p>Just like using the “find” function in a word processor to quickly jump to a word or phrase, the CRISPR molecular machinery finds a specific spot in the genome. It cuts both strands of DNA at that location. Because cut DNA is problematic for the cell, it quickly deploys a repair team to mend the break. There are two pathways for repairing the DNA. In one, which I call “CRISPR for modification,” a new gene can be inserted to link the cut ends together, like pasting a new sentence into a word processor. </p>
<p>In “CRISPR for mutation,” the cell’s repair team tries to glue the cut DNA strands back together again. Scientists can direct this repair team to change a few DNA units, or base pairs (A’s, T’s, C’s and G’s), at the site that was cut, creating a small DNA change called a mutation. This technique can be used to tweak the gene’s behavior inside the plant. It can also be used to silence genes inside the plant that, for example, are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2969">detrimental to plant survival</a>, like a gene that increases susceptibility to fungal infections.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In genetic engineering, a new gene is added to a random location in a plant’s genome. CRISPR for modification also allows a new gene to be added to a plant, but targets the new gene to a specific location. CRISPR for mutation does not add new DNA. Rather, it makes a small DNA change at a precise location. Mutation breeding uses chemicals or radiation (lightning bolts) to induce several small mutations in the genomes of seeds. Resulting plants are screened for beneficial mutations resulting in desirable traits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rebecca Mackelprang</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mDjLBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=mutation+breeding&ots=hOXPUt2p5H&sig=qcnBWrcHGIayvZ6YifclAT2sjYk#v=onepage&q=mutation%20breeding&f=false">Mutation breeding</a>, which in my opinion is also a type of biotechnology, is already used in organic food production. In mutation breeding, radiation or chemicals are used to randomly make mutations in the DNA of hundreds or thousands of seeds which are then grown in the field. Breeders scan fields for plants with a desired trait such as disease resistance or increased yield. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EUPH.0000014914.85465.4f">Thousands of new crop varieties</a> have been created and commercialized through this process, including everything from varieties of <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/quinoa-farmers-increase-yields-using-nuclear-derived-farming-practices">quinoa</a> to varieties of <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/11/27/popular-sweet-grapefruit-rio-red-a-product-of-unregulated-risky-process-of-mutagenesis/">grapefruit</a>. Mutation breeding is considered a <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-PM-13-1-CellFusion.pdf">traditional breeding technique</a>, and thus is not an “<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9c79a660d1d7414c48a7e1d257b00561&mc=true&node=pt7.3.205&rgn=div5#se7.3.205_1200">excluded method</a>” for organic farming in the United States.</p>
<p>CRISPR for mutation is more similar to mutation breeding than it is to genetic engineering. It creates similar end products as mutation breeding, but removes the randomness. It does not introduce new DNA. It is a controlled and predictable technique for generating helpful new plant varieties capable of resisting disease or weathering adverse environmental conditions.</p>
<h2>Opportunity lost – learning from genetic engineering</h2>
<p>Most commercialized genetically engineered traits confer herbicide tolerance or insect resistance in corn, soybean or cotton. Yet many other engineered crops exist. While a few are grown in the field, most sit all but forgotten in dark corners of research labs because of the prohibitive expense of passing regulatory hurdles. If the regulatory climate and public perception allow it, crops with valuable traits like these could be produced by CRISPR and become common in our soils and on our tables.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dr. Peggy Lemaux, holding seeds from the hypoallergenic wheat she helped develop with genetic engineering.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Block</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, my adviser at UC Berkeley developed, with colleagues, a <a href="https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/10892-bioengineering-of-wheat-still-faces-significant-challenges">hypoallergenic variety of wheat</a>. Seeds for this wheat are held captive in envelopes in the basement of our building, untouched for years. A <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/10/11/green-technology-disease-resistant-gmo-tomato-eliminate-need-copper-pesticides-double-yields-blocked-public-fears/">tomato</a> that uses a sweet pepper gene to defend against a bacterial disease, eliminating the need for copper-based pesticide application, has struggled to secure funding to move forward. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709005105">Carrot</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-004-3415-9">cassava</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9256-1">lettuce</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm299">potato</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1010-1012">more</a> have been engineered for increased nutritional value. These varieties demonstrate the creativity and expertise of researchers in bringing beneficial new traits to life. Why, then, can’t I buy bread made with hypoallergenic wheat at the grocery store?</p>
<h2>Loosening the grip of Big Agriculture</h2>
<p>Research and development of a new genetically engineered crop <a href="https://croplife-r9qnrxt3qxgjra4.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Getting-a-Biotech-Crop-to-Market-Phillips-McDougall-Study.pdf">costs</a> around US$100 million at large seed companies. Clearing the regulatory hurdles laid out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA and/or FDA (depending on the engineered trait) takes between five and seven years and an additional $35 million. Regulation is important and genetically engineered products should be carefully evaluated. But, the expense allows only large corporations with extensive capital to compete in this arena. The price shuts small companies, academic researchers and NGOs out of the equation. To recoup their $135 million investment in crop commercialization, companies develop products to satisfy the biggest markets of seed buyers – growers of corn, soybean, sugar beet and cotton.</p>
<p>The costs of research and development are far lower with CRISPR due to its precision and predictability. And early indications suggest that using CRISPR for mutation will not be subject to the same regulatory hurdles and costs in the U.S. A <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation">press release</a> on March 28, 2018 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that “under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques” if they are developed with approved laboratory procedures. </p>
<p>If the EPA and FDA follow suit with reasonable, less costly regulations, CRISPR may escape the dominant financial grasp of large seed companies. Academics, small companies and NGO researchers may see hard work and intellectual capital yield beneficial genome-edited products that are not forever relegated to the basements of research buildings.</p>
<h2>Common ground: CRISPR for sustainability</h2>
<p>In the six years since the genome editing capabilities of CRISPR were unlocked, academics, startups and established corporations have announced new agricultural products in the pipeline that use this technology. Some of these focus on traits for consumer health, such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12837">low-gluten</a> or gluten-free wheat for people with celiac disease. Others, such as non-browning <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19754">mushrooms</a>, can decrease food waste. </p>
<p>The lingering California drought demonstrated the importance of crop varieties that use water efficiently. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12603">Corn</a> with greater yield under drought stress has already been made using CRISPR, and it is only a matter of time before CRISPR is used to increase drought tolerance in other crops. Powdery mildew-resistant <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00578-x">tomatoes</a> could save billions of dollars and eliminate spraying of fungicides. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3733">tomato</a> plant that flowers and makes fruit early could be used in northern latitudes with long days and shorter growing seasons, which will become more important as climate changes. </p>
<h2>The rules are made, but is the decision final?</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dave Chapman, owner of Long Wind Farm, checks for insects on organic tomato plant leaves in his greenhouse in Thetford, Vt. Chapman is a leader of a farmer-driven effort to create an additional organic label that would exclude hydroponic farming and concentrated animal feeding operations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Food-and-Farm-Organic-Label/58acc6a056af49e08756acdc004aaa24/7/0">Lisa Rathke/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations/fall2016">2016</a> and <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations/fall2017">2017</a>, the U.S. <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb">National Organic Standards Board</a> (NOSB) voted to exclude all genome-edited crops from organic certification. </p>
<p>But in my view, they should reconsider. </p>
<p>Some organic growers I interviewed agree. “I see circumstances under which it could be useful for short-cutting a process that for traditional breeding might take many plant generations,” says Tom Willey, an organic farmer emeritus from California. The disruption of natural ecosystems is a major challenge to agriculture, Willey told me, and while the problem cannot be wholly addressed by genome editing, it could lend an opportunity to “reach back into genomes of the wild ancestors of crop species to recapture genetic material” that has been lost through millennia of breeding for high yields.</p>
<p>Breeders have successfully used traditional breeding to reintroduce such diversity, but “in the light of the urgency posed by climate change, we might wisely employ CRISPR to accelerate such work,” Willey concludes. </p>
<p>Bill Tracy, an organic corn breeder and professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, says, “Many CRISPR-induced changes that could happen in nature could have benefits to all kinds of farmers.” But, the NOSB has already voted on the issue and the rules are unlikely to change without significant pressure. “It’s a question of what social activity could move the needle on that,” Tracy concludes. </p>
<p>People on all sides of biotechnology debates want to maximize human and environmental outcomes. Collaborative problem-solving by organic (and conventional) growers, specialists in sustainable agriculture, biotechnologists and policymakers will yield greater progress than individual groups acting alone and dismissing each other. The barriers to this may seem large, but they are of our own making. Hopefully, more people will gain the courage to plug the projector back in and let the conversation continue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The funding for Rebecca Mackelprang's postdoctoral position comes from the Winkler Family Foundation.</span></em></p>Is gene editing compatible with organic farming? A scholar explains the differences between old genetic engineering and CRISPR methods, and why the latter is similar to tradition plant breeding.Rebecca Mackelprang, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/949672018-05-24T10:27:54Z2018-05-24T10:27:54ZWould Rachel Carson eat organic?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220170/original/file-20180523-51115-wrcj29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Silent Spring' author Rachel Carson testifies before a Senate Government Operations Subcommittee in Washington, D.C. on June 4, 1963. Carson urged Congress to curb the sale of chemical pesticides and aerial spraying. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-Dist-of-Columbi-/ab06074202e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/99/0">AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Rachel Carson, who launched the modern environmental movement with her 1962 book “<a href="http://www.rachelcarson.org/SilentSpring.aspx">Silent Spring</a>,” was a highly private person. But on one occasion she allowed an interviewer to ask, “What do you eat?” Her sardonic answer: “Chlorinated hydrocarbons like everyone else.” </p>
<p>Carson was referring to a family of chemicals used for insect control that included DDT, the principal target of her book. Even though Carson tragically died of cancer just 18 months after publication of “Silent Spring,” her best-seller had powerful and lasting effects. Congress moved to create a new federal Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, and two years later that agency banned DDT for agricultural use. </p>
<p>Did “Silent Spring” also launch our modern organic farming movement, as many organic <a href="http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/04/17/if-youve-eaten-organic-apple-week-thank-rachel-carson">advocates</a> and <a href="https://www.genatural.com/about/celebrating-rachel-carson/">businesses</a> often suggest? Actually, no. That movement began in Austria in 1924, led by a mystic philosopher named <a href="https://modernfarmer.com/2013/05/mystic-liver-inside-the-world-of-biodynamic-farming/">Rudolf Steiner</a>. Organic farmers use no synthetic chemicals at all, but Carson found this approach needlessly strict. In my research, I learned that she favored a restrained use of pesticides, but not a complete elimination, and did not oppose judicious use of manufactured fertilizers – which are prohibited in organic farming.</p>
<p>As a scholar focusing on food and agricultural policy, I respect Carson’s careful distinctions regarding agricultural chemicals. By not making these distinctions, I believe the organic farming movement has constrained its own potential not just to expand, but also to benefit the environment.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SeJNRaE11A0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">At a time when public faith in science and technology was high, Rachel Carson called for caution.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>An arms-length relationship</h2>
<p>When “Silent Spring” became a sensational best-seller, advocates for organic farming were torn at first over how to respond. The leader of America’s organic farming movement at the time was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Rodale">J. I. Rodale</a>, publisher of a magazine he had founded, called Organic Farming and Gardening. Rodale was jealous of Carson for having made such a splash criticizing DDT in 1962, since he had made roughly the same case 20 years earlier in the second issue of his magazine, but to little notice. He also <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30002401_The_land_in_trust_a_social_history_of_the_organic_farming_movement">chided Carson</a> for not taking on chemical fertilizers as well as pesticides.</p>
<p>Rodale’s son Robert, who was editing the magazine in 1962, shared his father’s view that Carson was not fully on board with strict organic rules, but couldn’t resist trying to depict her as a supporter. He called her book a “masterpiece” and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013494861">described her</a> as presenting “the organic point of view.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"362558314854354946"}"></div></p>
<p>Carson, however, intentionally distanced herself from the organic community. She refused to speak before organic groups, and on one occasion even <a href="http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1526404569828%7E321">canceled out</a> of an event after learning J. I. Rodale had been booked on the same panel without her approval. Carson considered Rodale, who had no scientific training and very few scientific instincts, to be “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=0upePAioevgC&pg=PT45&lpg=PT45&dq=carson+considered+rodale+an+eccentric&source=bl&ots=S21PSOk88x&sig=FNgl8m6MZoRuoKZUBGLJRlRSLLE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM9rS4nIjbAhUqhuAKHTnTD1AQ6AEIRTAE#v=onepage&q=carson%20considered%20rodale%20an%20eccentric&f=false">an eccentric</a>.” </p>
<p>This he was. Rodale had once <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/119007/bizarre-life-and-death-mr-organic">raised doubts</a> about the value of the Salk polio vaccine, pushing for a dietary cure instead, and had argued that drinking artificially softened water would cause cancer. When researching her book, Carson did correspond with some followers of Rudolf Steiner, who shared incriminating evidence they had gathered on DDT, but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013494861">she did not acknowledge their help in her book</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220180/original/file-20180523-117628-ds1fy2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=605&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/82315/janfeb17_feature_greene_fig05.png?v=42767">USDA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Synthetic fertilizer boosts food production</h2>
<p>The organic farming movement was suspect in Carson’s eyes because most of its early leaders were not scientists. Steiner, the first prominent advocate for renouncing manufactured nitrogen fertilizers, was a mystic who believed in human reincarnation, the lost world of Atlantis, and <a href="https://steiner.presswarehouse.com/books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=21420">an earlier lost continent named Lemuria</a>.</p>
<p>Carson, who earned a master’s degree in zoology from Johns Hopkins University, disliked the nonscientific absolutes embraced by the organic movement. Instead she favored the central tenet of toxicology: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison">It is the dose that makes the poison</a>. In “Silent Spring” she framed her position on pesticides this way: “The ultimate answer is to use less toxic chemicals so that the public hazard from their misuse is greatly reduced.” When Carson testified to Congress in 1963, she <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/how-silent-spring-ignited-the-environmental-movement.html">said</a>, “I think chemicals do have a place.” </p>
<p>Carson rejected the organic proscription against synthetic nitrogen fertilizer for good reason. Interdisciplinary scholar <a href="http://vaclavsmil.com/">Vaclav Smil</a> of the University of Manitoba has estimated that without nitrogen fertilizer, 40 percent of the increase in food production achieved in the 20th century <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer.html">could never have taken place</a>. Smil also has shown that for at least a third of humanity in the world’s most populous countries, the use of nitrogen fertilizer <a href="https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.2.126">made the difference</a> between an adequate diet and malnutrition. </p>
<p>Farming without nitrogen fertilizer, using things like composted animal manure instead, makes growing food far more expensive. This is one of the reasons why organic salad mix costs on average <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/">60 percent more than a conventionally grown mix</a>; organic milk, 72 percent more; and organic eggs, 82 percent more. These high prices, in turn, explain why organic food sales make up only <a href="https://www.foodmanufacturing.com/news/2017/05/robust-organic-sector-stays-upward-climb-posts-new-records-us-sales">5.3 percent of total food sales</a> in the United States today, and why certified organic cropland makes up less than <a href="https://ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/StateOfOrganicIndustry_0.pdf.">1 percent of total cropland</a> </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220182/original/file-20180523-51115-rewev5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/82316/janfeb17_feature_greene_fig06.png?v=42767">USDA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Environmental progress without organic</h2>
<p>Despite the small size of the organic sector, pesticide and fertilizer use have long since stopped growing in the United States, even as crop production has continued to increase. Total insecticide use peaked in <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014/june/pesticide-use-peaked-in-1981-then-trended-downward-driven-by-technological-innovations-and-other-factors/">1972</a> and has fallen by 82 percent since then. Fertilizer use initially peaked in <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=55">1981</a>, and applications have remained essentially flat for more than three decades now, even as total crop production <a href="https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/Crop-production-index">has grown by 44 percent</a>. Our stunted organic sector did not bring us these benefits. When it comes to reduced insecticide use, the credit goes to Rachel Carson. </p>
<p>To be sure, farm fertilizer runoff is a serious threat to water quality today. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported in 2017 that the dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River had grown to cover an area of 8,776 square miles, the <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/gulf-mexico-hypoxia-water-quality-dead-zone/">largest ever recorded in 32 years of monitoring</a>. But I believe the solution has to come from continued improvements in conventional farming, such as planting more buffer strips between fields and waterways to trap chemical runoff. Most commercial farmers will not accept the unrealistic organic approach of switching to zero use of manufactured fertilizers. </p>
<p>Scaling up organic production could actually harm the environment, since it would require so much more land per bushel of production. USDA survey data in 2014 revealed that output per acre on organic farms was on average only <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161673">80 percent of conventional yields</a>. This means that if the United States had raised all of its crops organically in 2014, we would have had to cultivate an additional 109 million acres of land – an area equal to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/09/the-organic-farming-yield-gap/#68b1760b5e0e">all parkland and wildland area in the lower 48 states combined</a>. The result would be a different kind of silent spring, caused not by chemicals but by needless destruction of wildlife habitat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94967/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Paarlberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Did Rachel Carson catalyze the organic farming movement, as many advocates claim? Or would she reject their ban on synthetic fertilizer and see organic as an inefficient way to feed the world?Robert Paarlberg, Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/943042018-05-11T05:13:13Z2018-05-11T05:13:13ZThe secret agents protecting our crops and gardens<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215722/original/file-20180420-75104-1u2pbpt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lacewings are fantastic predators and are easy to rear and release.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Papacek & Tony Meredith (Bugs for Bugs)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Insect pests cause a huge amount of damage to crops globally. In Australia alone, pests are responsible for <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aen.12017">around A$360 million of crop losses</a> a year. Controlling pest outbreaks is crucial for <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712000821">food security</a> and human health. Since the 1940s, our primary defence against crop pests has been synthetic pesticides. But using pesticides comes at a huge cost. </p>
<h2>Not all bugs are bad!</h2>
<p>Bees, flies and butterflies help to pollinate our plants. Decomposers like beetles and worms help break down wastes and return nutrients to the soil. Meanwhile, predators and parasites help control the species that are pests. One of the biggest environmental problems with pesticides is that they can <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x">affect these beneficial species</a> as well as the pests they’re targeting.</p>
<p>Predatory insects and spiders control pests with none of the health and environmental risks of chemicals. So when we kill these species with insecticides, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-real-cost-of-pesticides-in-australias-food-boom-20757">The real cost of pesticides in Australia's food boom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Losing insects also has flow-on effects for <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13531">larger animals that rely on them for food</a>. Because invertebrates have such important roles to play in our environment, losing them to insecticides can completely change how <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11356-014-3277-x">ecosystems function</a>. </p>
<h2>An alternative to insecticides</h2>
<p>Biological control (or biocontrol) relies on “secret agents” – the natural enemies (predators and parasitoids) of pests that live freely in the ecosystems around us. </p>
<p>There is a huge range of predatory invertebrates that eat pests. They include dragonflies, preying mantids, beetles (including ladybugs), lacewings, spiders, mites, wasps, and even some flies. </p>
<p>Parasitoids, meanwhile, are insects that lay their eggs in the bodies of other invertebrates. Their larvae extract nutrients from the host during their development, which ultimately kills the host. <a href="http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150522-the-wasps-that-rule-the-world">Wasps are best known for this strategy</a> but there are also parasitoid flies and beetles. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214658/original/file-20180413-587-7fusum.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214658/original/file-20180413-587-7fusum.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214658/original/file-20180413-587-7fusum.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214658/original/file-20180413-587-7fusum.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214658/original/file-20180413-587-7fusum.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214658/original/file-20180413-587-7fusum.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214658/original/file-20180413-587-7fusum.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lady birds are voracious predators ready to eat pests in crops and gardens.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Manu Saunders</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Predators and parasitoids are useful because they use pest insects, like caterpillars and aphids, as food to reproduce and grow their populations. We walk past many of these hard working agents every day without knowing it. </p>
<p>One biocontrol method that gardeners and land managers use is called augmentation. This simply means raising lots of live individuals of particular natural enemies, like ladybirds or wasps, and releasing them into an area to control pests. </p>
<p>Alternatively, gardeners might change the local environment to encourage these natural enemies to move in on their own. They might include <a href="https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5203061/fight-fire-with-fire-reduce-pesticide-use-with-insects/">natural insectariums</a> or planting different types of vegetation to encourage diverse invertebrate communities. There is increasing evidence of the success of these strategies in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09183">organic farming</a> so we should be thinking about using them more broadly. </p>
<h2>Selecting your insects</h2>
<p>If you want to release biocontrol agents, you need to choose them carefully, just like human special agents. Like any introduced plant or animal, there is a risk that good bugs could become pests (if they feed on the wrong insects, for example). </p>
<p>Selecting biological control agents requires close collaboration between managers, skilled entomologists and other scientists. For each new species, they identify the pest and some potential predators. They look at the predator’s life cycle and resource needs, and consider how it interacts not just with pests, but with other insects too. If agents are coming in from overseas, they also need to be cleared by government biosecurity.</p>
<p><a href="https://bugsforbugs.com.au/products/bio-control-agents/">Parasiotid wasps, lacewings, predatory mites, ladybird beetles, and nematodes</a> are all common biocontrol agents. These species are relatively easy to raise in large numbers and work well when released into the field. Spiders are also a really important predator of many pest insects, but they’re often overlooked in the biocontrol game because they are harder to breed - and for some reason people don’t always like releasing large numbers of spiders. </p>
<p>Many biocontrol agents are enemies of pests in general, preying on aphids, caterpillars and fruit flies alike. It’s important to have generalists around for every day pest control, but sometimes a more targeted approach is needed. This is when specialised predators or parasitoids come in. These are species that only target specific pests like <a href="https://bugsforbugs.com.au/whats-your-pest/">leaf miners, beetles, scale insects or spider mites</a>. This way the target pest can be managed with no risk of the parasitoids accidentally attacking other beneficial invertebrates. </p>
<h2>Raising good bugs</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215333/original/file-20180418-164001-1k6yd1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215333/original/file-20180418-164001-1k6yd1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215333/original/file-20180418-164001-1k6yd1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215333/original/file-20180418-164001-1k6yd1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215333/original/file-20180418-164001-1k6yd1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215333/original/file-20180418-164001-1k6yd1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215333/original/file-20180418-164001-1k6yd1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s very exciting to get live insects in the mail!</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lizzy Lowe</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once a biocontrol agent has been selected, greenhouses or lab facilities start raising a large population. This is an emerging market in Australia, but there are already a <a href="http://www.goodbugs.org.au/">number of companies in Australia</a> who specialise in rearing biological control agents. </p>
<p>This is a tricky job because demand for the product is variable and is not easy to predict. Warmer seasons are the peak time for most pests, but problems can arise at any time of the year. In most cases the biocontrol company will maintain breeding colonies throughout the year and will be ready to ramp up production at a moment’s notice when a farmer identifies a pest problem. Each company usually provides 10-20 different biocontrol agents and are always looking for new species that might be useful. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/birds-bees-and-bugs-your-garden-is-an-ecosystem-and-it-needs-looking-after-65226">Birds, bees and bugs: your garden is an ecosystem, and it needs looking after</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>When it comes to getting the agents to the farmers, the bugs can be shipped as eggs (ready to hatch on arrival), or as live adults ready to disperse and lay their own eggs. The packages are express posted in boxes designed to keep the insects cool and safe. </p>
<p>Once the farmer or natural resource manager receives the bugs, applying them is quite simple. The secret agents are released among the crops, usually by hand, but in some special cases they may be airlifted in via <a href="http://aerobugs.com.au/">specialised drones</a>! </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215327/original/file-20180418-163998-d6iuk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215327/original/file-20180418-163998-d6iuk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215327/original/file-20180418-163998-d6iuk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215327/original/file-20180418-163998-d6iuk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215327/original/file-20180418-163998-d6iuk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215327/original/file-20180418-163998-d6iuk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215327/original/file-20180418-163998-d6iuk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Drones can be used to deploy biological control agents.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan Roy (Aerobugs)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s important to monitor the pests and the biological control agents after release to check that the agents are working. Some farmers are happy to do this themselves but most <a href="https://ipmtechnologies.com.au/">biological control companies have experts</a> to visit the farms and keep an eye on all parties.</p>
<h2>Can I use good bugs in my garden?</h2>
<p>If you have a problem with a pest like aphids it is possible to buy predators such as ladybirds or lacewings to quickly deal with the problem. But for long term pest control, there are probably already some natural enemies living in your garden! The easiest and cheapest way to help them is to put the insecticides away and ensure your garden is a friendly environment for secret agents.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94304/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lizzy Lowe has a research collaboration with Bugs for Bugs but does not have any financial ties with this company. She has received funding from the Linnean Society of NSW and is on the board of the Australian Entomological Society. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Manu Saunders does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Not all bugs are bad! Put down the pesticides and get to know the predators and parasites hidden around you.Lizzy Lowe, Postdoctoral researcher, Macquarie UniversityManu Saunders, Research fellow, University of New EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/921562018-04-23T22:33:15Z2018-04-23T22:33:15ZOrganic agriculture is going mainstream, but not the way you think it is<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215644/original/file-20180419-163995-6a88xa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some farmers are starting to incorporate organic practices into their operations. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Pexels)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the biggest knocks against the organics movement is that it has begun to ape conventional agriculture, adopting the latter’s monocultures, reliance on purchased inputs and industrial processes. </p>
<p>“Big Organics” is often derided by advocates of sustainable agriculture. The American food authors Michael Pollan and Julie Guthman, for example, argue that as organic agriculture has scaled up and gone mainstream <a href="https://michaelpollan.com/books/the-omnivores-dilemma/">it has lost its commitment to building an alternative system for providing food</a>, instead “<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520277465">replicating what it set out to oppose</a>.” </p>
<p>New research, however, suggests that the relationship between organic and conventional farming is more complex. The flow of influence is starting to reverse course. </p>
<p>Practitioners of conventional agriculture are now borrowing “organic” techniques to reduce the use of pesticides, artificial fertilizers and excessive tillage, and to increase on-farm biodiversity, beneficial insects and soil conservation.</p>
<p>All of a sudden, many conventional vegetable farms are starting to look organic.</p>
<h2>Organic goes mainstream</h2>
<p>Next to nothing has been written on this subject. A rare exception is a 2016 article in the <em>New York Times</em> that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/business/cover-crops-a-farming-revolution-with-deep-roots-in-the-past.html">profiled conventional farmers</a> in Indiana who had started to use “cover crops.” </p>
<p>These non-commercial crops build organic matter into the soil, fix atmospheric nitrogen and add biodiversity to an agroecosystem, while allowing farmers to reduce artificial fertilizer inputs. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216007/original/file-20180423-94132-1mx0et9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216007/original/file-20180423-94132-1mx0et9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216007/original/file-20180423-94132-1mx0et9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216007/original/file-20180423-94132-1mx0et9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216007/original/file-20180423-94132-1mx0et9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216007/original/file-20180423-94132-1mx0et9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216007/original/file-20180423-94132-1mx0et9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A tractor sprays pesticide on a field.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As organic agriculture has scaled up, it has gained credibility in the marketplace as well as on the farm. Organic farming has roots in market gardens and smaller farms, but there is nothing that prohibits organic production at larger scales. </p>
<p>That often means bigger farms, hundreds — or thousands — of acres in size. </p>
<p>This move toward the mainstream has caught the eye of many conventional farmers, who have either transitioned to certified organic production or begun to integrate organic practices on conventional plots. </p>
<h2>Market share not the whole story</h2>
<p>Even <a href="https://ota.com/sites/default/files/By%20the%20Numbers%202016%20-%20March%202018%20.pdf">with the upscaling</a>, the market position of organic agriculture remains limited. </p>
<p>In Canada, organic sales grow by nearly 10 per cent per year, and the total value of the organic market is around $5.4 billion. Yet the reality is that the industry is still dwarfed by conventional agriculture.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.ota.com/canada-ota/what-cota-does/research-market-analysis">more than 4,000 certified organic farms in Canada</a>, totalling 2.43 million acres. But this accounts for only 1.5 per cent of the country’s total agricultural land. </p>
<p>Also, aside from the two organic heavyweights — coffee (imported) and mixed greens (mostly imported) — <a href="http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/docs/BC%20Organic%20Market%20Report%202013.pdf">the market share of organic groceries is pretty small, at around three per cent</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the influence of organics is felt well beyond its own limited market.</p>
<h2>Testing the market</h2>
<p>Many growers divide their farms into separate conventional and certified organic zones. This “split production” is a way to learn organic growing, test the market and hedge one’s bets against yield issues. </p>
<p>In 2017, as part of a research project on organic transition funded by the Canadian Organic Growers (COG), I travelled across the country and conducted in-depth interviews at farms that had recently transitioned from conventional to organic farming. </p>
<p>Half of the 12 farms I visited practised split production. What’s significant (and totally unanticipated) is that all of the farms in split production had also introduced organic techniques to the conventional portions of the operation. </p>
<p>With familiarity came trust.</p>
<h2>Adopting organic techniques</h2>
<p>These are not mom-and-pop operations. The list includes Canada’s biggest organic vegetable operation — Kroeker Farms/PoplarGrove in Winkler, Manitoba — and many other large vegetable farms across the country.</p>
<p>They used compost, manure and/or cover crops, had cut back on toxic and persistent pesticides, <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5146e/y5146e08.htm">reduced tillage</a> and embraced longer and more biodiverse crop rotations. In the process, they had also protected and promoted pollinators and beneficial insect predators. </p>
<p>Kroeker Farms, a megafarm that has 4,800 acres under organic production and another 20,000 or so in conventional production, is leading the trend toward a more organic-like conventional system. </p>
<p>“We try really, really hard to use organic-type pesticides or biological [control agents] in our conventional, because once you spray with a more lethal spray that’s a broad spectrum [pesticide], the pests flare up after that,” the CEO of the company, Wayne Rempel, told me. </p>
<h2>Trending nationally</h2>
<p>Similar trends are found across the country. </p>
<p>In Prince Edward Island, Red Soil Organics has begun to plant fall rye — a classic organic cover crop — as part of the rotation on its conventional side, a bit like those farmers in Indiana. </p>
<p>Another PEI farm, Square One Organics, uses cover crops, manure and tine weeding (a common, low-impact, mechanical weeding technique used on organic farms) on their conventional plots. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216006/original/file-20180423-94163-h41m99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216006/original/file-20180423-94163-h41m99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216006/original/file-20180423-94163-h41m99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216006/original/file-20180423-94163-h41m99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216006/original/file-20180423-94163-h41m99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216006/original/file-20180423-94163-h41m99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216006/original/file-20180423-94163-h41m99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Potato fields in Prince Edward Island.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbeales/1270734523">(John Beales/flickr)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The cover crops and manure have allowed the farm to reduce its use of nitrogen fertilizer by about 10 per cent. This reduces nitrogen runoff into waterways, which can cause algae blooms and kill aquatic species. </p>
<p>The combination of tine weeding and perennial cover crops has also allowed the farm to reduce or eliminate herbicide use on the conventional side of the farm. “We’re managing our soil organic matter in totally different ways,” says owner Matt Ramsay. </p>
<p>It’s impossible to know the cumulative ecological benefits of this growing trend. Organic techniques, such as composting and the use of cover crops, are <a href="https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-640-x/2016001/article/14811-eng.htm">not tracked closely</a> by Statistics Canada. With more research, we might have a better sense of the benefits. </p>
<h2>Grounds for action</h2>
<p>The motivations are easier to define. Farmers have made it clear that organic techniques work well, organic inputs are generally cheaper than conventional ones, and organic practices have a beneficial impact on the agroecosystem.</p>
<p>Yet until a conventional farmer begins the transition to certified organic growing, he or she often knows or cares little about organic practices. Right now, the best way for a farmer to learn about organic growing is by reading handbooks, attending conferences and taking courses.</p>
<p>It might be the case that Big Organics has begun to look like conventional farming. But it appears to be the case that, at least on some Canadian farms, Big Conventional is starting to look like organic.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92156/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremy L. Caradonna received funding from Canadian Organic Growers (COG) for research that informs this article. </span></em></p>Some conventional vegetable farms in Canada are starting to use organic methods in their operations.Jeremy Lawrence Caradonna, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Studies, University of VictoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/945762018-04-08T19:49:11Z2018-04-08T19:49:11ZWhy Australia imports so many veggie seeds (and do we really need to treat them with fungicides?)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213538/original/file-20180406-125167-y4dih6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australian growers Imported rassicaceae seeds, including radishes, may be required o </span> </figcaption></figure><p>Organic farmers have <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/organics-industry-shocked-by-official-plan-for-forced-chemical-sprays-20180330-p4z714.html">reacted with alarm</a> to a <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/risk-analysis/plant/brassicaceous-crop-seeds">draft review</a> released last week that recommends mandatory fungicide treatment for certain plant seeds imported into Australia, including broccoli, cauliflower, radish and spinach. </p>
<p>Over 19,000 people have signed a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/minister-for-agriculture-and-water-resources-david-littleproud-mp-protect-our-organic-vegetable-seed-supply-from-mandatory-fungicide-treatment?recruiter=30292772&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition">change.org</a> petition objecting to the proposal, which is designed to strengthen biosecurity for plants of the brassicaceae family. Opponents say mandatory fungicide treatment could spell the loss of organic accreditation for organic vegetable growers who rely on imported seed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-australia-needs-biosecurity-20105">Explainer: why Australia needs biosecurity</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why do we need to import seeds?</h2>
<p>Australia’s vegetable growers do rely heavily on imported seed. But why?</p>
<p>The answer lies partly in where plant breeding expertise and effort is centred globally. Continuous (and often long-term) efforts in breeding have lead to the development of plant varieties with benefits like improved yield or quality, tolerance to stress and resistance to disease. These varieties have major advantages for growers (provided they are suitable for Australian conditions).</p>
<p>The global vegetable seed market is dominated by a small number of multinational companies. These international companies produce seeds in multiple locations around the world to reduce the risk of running low on popular varieties, and to benefit from the counter seasons of the northern and southern hemispheres.</p>
<p>However, seed grading, testing and treatment (including fungicide coating) is generally centrally coordinated at the company’s key global facility. These facilities are typically in close proximity to major vegetable growing regions, and thus outside Australia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-believe-everything-you-hear-about-pesticides-on-fruits-and-vegetables-74140">Don't believe everything you hear about pesticides on fruits and vegetables</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are several companies distributing or producing vegetable seed in Australia, however most are owned by foreign parent companies and the breeding is done by them off-shore. In this case, subsidiary groups in Australia import the seed from the parent company, grow a crop for seed, and then may sell locally or return the seed to the parent company for quality control and global sale and distribution.</p>
<p>If seed were grown in Australia only for a domestic market, it would be a very small market without the benefits of an economy of scale. However, there are other benefits of breeding and growing crops for vegetable seed in Australia, including the scope to prioritise breeding efforts in response to local need. University of Sydney-based company Abundant Produce is addressing this gap for some vegetable crops, but not any brassicas as yet.</p>
<h2>Can we protect biosecurity and organic farmers at the same time?</h2>
<p>To address the dilemma faced by organic brassica growers who rely on imported seed, can the risk of diseases entering Australia be managed in organically acceptable ways?</p>
<p>In their draft review of the risk analysis for import of brassica seeds, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources do clearly state that alternative measures will be considered if the “appropriate level of protection” can be achieved.</p>
<p>These alternatives may include importing seed from areas or production sites that are designated as free of the two pathogens of concern. A further alternative is seeds that have been grown using at least two independent and verified disease control measures (either pre- or post-harvest) as part of a “<a href="https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/607/">systems approach</a>” to manage pest risk.</p>
<p><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.687.5969&rep=rep1&type=pdf">Non-fungicide seed treatments</a> could also be considered. Heat, applied via steam, water or air, <a href="https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1094/PDIS.2002.86.3.278">electrolysed water</a>, or <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ista/sst/2017/00000045/00000001/art00006">pulsed electric fields</a> could be used, if they achieve the appropriate level of protection and seed viability is maintained. <a href="http://articles.extension.org/pages/18952/organic-seed-treatments-and-coatings#.VaJzTV9Vikp">Organically-approved</a> seed coatings and other treatments may also be an option.</p>
<p>But the efficiency of treatments depends on how the pathogen infects the host and in which <a href="http://www.seedbiology.de/structure.asp">part of the seed</a> it is found. </p>
<p>There are at least eight combinations of <a href="https://www.apsnet.org/publications/phytopathology/backissues/Documents/1983Abstracts/Phyto73_326.htm">seed infection sites and types</a>, and fungal pathogens can use all of these.</p>
<p>One of the fungal pathogens targeted by the proposed regulations is <em><a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2FgenomeA.00821-16">Colletotrichum higginsianum</a></em> , which infects broccoli, cabbage, kale, cauliflower, bok choy and radishes and causes dark sunken lesions on all above-ground plant parts. </p>
<p>While studies are lacking on how that specific pathogen develops in brasscia seed, <a href="https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ijar.2007.812.819">studies with Colletotrichum truncatum in soybean seeds</a> found that it could grow in the cotyledon and embryo but was most abundant in the seed coat.</p>
<p>The other pathogen of concern is a sub-type of <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02981311">Fusarium oxysporum</a></em> which is notorious for vascular wilt diseases in many crops around the world.</p>
<p><em>Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. raphani</em> can cause major crop loss in Eruca vesicaria crops (including rocket) and radishes. These fungal pathgogens can cause systemic infections in the plant, and then <a href="https://www.apsnet.org/publications/phytopathology/backissues/Documents/1983Abstracts/Phyto73_326.htm">establish in the seed</a> as it develops. So, they can be found in any part of the seed, but especially the embryo and seed coat. </p>
<p>The anatomy of the seed itself is also a factor in determining which seed treatment is best. For example, seed of pyrethrum (a daisy from which the household insecticide of the same name is sourced) has a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppa.12622">porous coat</a> which makes steaming a commercially viable option for the elimination of <a href="http://ecite.utas.edu.au/118260">fungal pathogens</a>. Similarly, <a href="https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PD-89-1305">heat treatments and chlorine</a> are used to disinfect spinach seed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/you-say-tomato-why-some-fruits-are-forever-doomed-to-be-called-veggies-62099">You say tomato... why some fruits are forever doomed to be called veggies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another advantage of finding alternatives to fungicide treatment of imported seed is that frequent use of fungicides can lead to pathogen <a href="http://www.frac.info/resistance-overview/mechanisms-of-fungicide-resistance">resistance</a>. This means that the pathogens evolve to overcome its mode of action and are no longer controlled by it. </p>
<p>Broad-spectrum fungicides have been recommended by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources for mandatory seed treatment, and the selection and management of these as part of resistance risk assessment requires attention by all growers. </p>
<p>It should be possible to satisfy both biosecurity stringency and the organic vegetable sector if enough time and resources are given to finding solutions. Establishing local breeding and seed production efforts would take a solid business case and investment. Assessment of seed treatment alternatives would require research trials and require cooperation from seed companies. </p>
<p>As always, the question is – who is going to pay?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94576/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Barry is the State Councillor for the Australasian Plant Pathology Society, and was previously a director at the Ag Institute Australia. She has received funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alistair Gracie receives funding from Hort Innovation Australia and Australian Research Council. He has undertaken research for vegetable seed companies Bejo Seeds, Rijk Zwaan Australia and South Pacific Seeds. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Scott receives funding from Australian Research Council and Horticulture Innovation Australia Ltd. </span></em></p>A proposal that all imported vegetable seeds be treated with fungicide has drawn outrage from Australia’s organic producers, who fear losing their certification.Karen Barry, Senior Lecturer, Plant Pathology, University of TasmaniaAlistair Gracie, Associate Professor in Horticultural Science, University of TasmaniaJason Scott, Senior Lecturer, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/869072018-01-23T11:19:48Z2018-01-23T11:19:48ZHealthy to eat, unhealthy to grow: Strawberries embody the contradictions of California agriculture<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193852/original/file-20171108-14159-4dgdct.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Suspected infestation of Macrophomina phaseolina, a "novel" soil pathogen, in the non-fumigated buffer zone of a strawberry field</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julie Guthman</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Agricultural abundance is a pillar of the California dream. In 2016 the state turned out <a href="https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/">more than US$45 billion worth</a> of meat, milk and crops. Long before nutritionists agreed that fresh fruits and vegetables should be the center of American diets, California farmers had planted much of their land in these products, and today they produce <a href="https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/farm_bill/">half of the nation’s fruits, vegetables and nuts</a>. </p>
<p>But although fruits and vegetables are vaunted as healthy foods, their impact as crops is quite different. On many California produce farms wages are low, working conditions are poor, and farmers use enormous quantities of pesticides and precious water. This is the central contradiction of California agriculture.</p>
<p>For the past five years I have been studying California’s strawberry industry, which currently is the state’s <a href="https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/">sixth</a> most important commodity in terms of the value of crops sold. Strawberries are attractive, reasonably nutritious and occasionally tasty fruits and can be grown and eaten within California nearly year-round. But the industry’s growth has relied on heavy use of toxic chemicals and now growers face heightened restrictions on some of their most favored chemicals: soil fumigants. Unfortunately, less toxic or non-chemical strategies that would allow strawberries to be grown for a mass market, maintaining affordable prices, are elusive and likely to remain so. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202607/original/file-20180119-110084-46utwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Strawberry pickers in Salinas, Calif., photographed April 27, 2009.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Xp3-dot-us_DSC8991.jpg">Holgerhubbs</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Chemical dependence</h2>
<p>Although strawberry production once was scattered throughout the state, by the 1960s it had concentrated in coastal zones to take advantage of sandy soils and mild temperatures. Thereafter, the industry saw tremendous growth in productivity. In Monterey and Santa Cruz counties alone, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2016a0001">acreage more than tripled and production increased tenfold</a> from 1960 to 2014. Much of this growth was enabled by advances in plant breeding and use of plastic tarps to absorb heat, allowing growers to increase the length of strawberry seasons. </p>
<p>But the main driver of growth has been the use of pre-plant chemical fumigants. Growers hire pest control companies to fumigate soils before planting strawberries in order to kill soil-borne pests – most importantly, plant pathogens such as <em>Verticillium dahliae</em> and <em>Macrophomina phaseolina</em>. Without such treatment, these pathogens cause strawberry plants to wilt and die. </p>
<p>Now, however, the industry’s fumigant of choice – methyl bromide – can no longer be used in strawberry fruit production. In 1991 methyl bromide was banned under the <a href="http://ozone.unep.org/en/treaties-and-decisions/montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer">Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer</a>. The United States was supposed to phase out use by 2005, a deadline that was extended to 2015 and didn’t really take effect until two years later. Even so, this toxic chemical can still be used in nursery production to ensure that starter plants are virus- and pathogen-free. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202609/original/file-20180119-110103-1x1y52i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Recently fumigated field in Watsonville, Calif., Oct. 11, 2009.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/791REj">Benketaro</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One potential replacement, methyl iodide, was approved for use in late 2010. But it was <a href="http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.2016a0003">withdrawn from the market in 2012</a>, following an activist campaign and lawsuit that accused California regulators of performing an inadequate review of potential health risks to workers and the general public. Among other things, the chemical is a known <a href="http://www.stpp.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/Final%20Report%20SRC.pdf">neurotoxin and carcinogen</a>. </p>
<p>Other fumigants are still allowed, but their use is increasingly restricted by buffer zones and township quotas. Consequently, growers are contending with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2012.697000">heightened levels of plant disease</a>, some from pathogens that had never before been evident in California strawberry fields. </p>
<h2>An embedded system</h2>
<p>Can California find a less toxic way to raise <a href="http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/LyraEDISServlet?command=getImageDetail&image_soid=FIGURE%207&document_soid=FE971&document_version=1">90 percent of the nation’s fresh strawberries</a>? Although the strawberry industry is <a href="http://www.calstrawberry.com/Portals/0/images/2013-CSC_enviroreport_web.pdf">investing significant resources into non-chemical alternatives to manage soil-borne disease</a>, the obstacles are formidable. The entire production system, including reliance on fumigants, is <a href="https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2017a0017">embedded into the cost of land</a>. </p>
<p>Fumigation has allowed growers to plant on the same blocks of land, year after year, and not worry about soil disease. With fumigation available to control pathogens, strawberry breeders have emphasized productivity, beauty and durability rather than pathogen resistance. Meanwhile, nursery production has shifted away from prime fruit growing regions along the coast to take advantage of different environments for plant propagation, enabling coastal land to be used solely for growing fruit. </p>
<p>Together these innovations have allowed growers to keep prime strawberry land in production every year for much of the year, yielding exceptional amounts of fruit. High land prices reflect these expectations and make it unprofitable to grow strawberries using less intensive methods. The Pacific Ocean’s natural summer air-conditioning is attractive to suburbanites as well as strawberries, so coastal development is putting additional pressure on the cost of strawberry land while at the same time increasing public pressure to control use of fumigants. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202622/original/file-20180119-110106-1rcwmmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Official logo of the California Strawberry Commission.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/California_Strawberry_Commission_Logo_-_Color.jpg">CA Strawberry Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Chemical-free strawberries for the few</h2>
<p>Informed and concerned consumers ingrained with California’s deep culture of environmentalism have turned to organic strawberries, which they see as a more sustainable option. As conventional growers took note of this vibrant market, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2016a0001">organic strawberry production rose fivefold between 2000 and 2012</a>, to reach about <a href="http://www.organicproducenetwork.com/article/351/organic-strawberries-in-short-supply?utm_source=OPN+Connect+Weekly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1ad7c5557e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_558944fdc9-1ad7c5557e-123782331">3,300 acres planted in 2017</a>, which represents 12 percent of all strawberry acreage. </p>
<p>But although organic growers use non-chemical soil fumigation methods or rotate strawberries with crops that have a mild disease-suppressing effect, such as broccoli, few of them fundamentally alter the production system in other ways. In my research, I have observed that some growers are finding land away from prime areas that can be quickly certified for organic production, but have no long-term plans to manage soil diseases when they inevitably arise – a practice that is not in the spirit of organic production. </p>
<p>A small but dedicated set of growers have learned how to raise strawberries for the long haul without fumigants. However, even they use starter plants produced on fumigated soil, since no nurseries produce organic plants. Crucially, for these growers strawberries are a minor crop in what are otherwise highly diversified systems. And most of these producers are located outside of prime strawberry growing regions, where land is cheaper. Their approach therefore is not nearly replicable for growers producing for the mass market.</p>
<p>These exceptions tell us as much about the limits of California strawberry production as does mainstream production. Consumers who want organic strawberries must be willing to live with compromises, pay premium prices – and eat their broccoli. For others, the dream of affordable year-round strawberries grown without toxic chemicals is already an impossible one.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Guthman has received funding from the National Science Foundation in support of this research. She is currently a co-principal investigator on a USDA-funded project that aims to develop pathogen-resistant strawberries. </span></em></p>California produces 90 percent of the US strawberry crop, but growers face curbs on toxic chemicals that have helped their industry expand. Can a system centered on mass production become more sustainable?Julie Guthman, Professor of Social Sciences, University of California, Santa CruzLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/814482018-01-21T21:01:32Z2018-01-21T21:01:32ZThe roots of organic farming lie in fascism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202511/original/file-20180118-158513-mlgw8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The roots of organic farming in the United Kingdom can be traced to the fascism movement that began after the First World War.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rick Barrett/ambitious creative co </span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1927 Henry Williamson published <em>Tarka the Otter</em>, the story of an otter living in the Torridge River in Devon, U.K. Recognized today as a classic of nature writing, it has seldom been out of print. </p>
<p>Though Williamson described the creature’s world in knowledgeable detail, he was not born and bred in Devon. Like a lot of soldiers who returned from the trenches of the Western Front, he abandoned London and headed out to the countryside to recuperate among the quiet villages and patchwork fields. </p>
<p>And like a lot of returned soldiers, he also came around to thinking that the British landscape and the people who worked it were worth defending against the corporations, banks and their political allies who threatened traditional ways of life.</p>
<p>In 1936 he joined <a href="http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/farming/unseen-1930s-photos-illustrate-the-story-of-henry-williamson-the-norfolk-farmer-who-flirted-with-fascism-1-5026352">Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists</a> and became a blackshirt, believing that fascism was the only ideology with a sensible programme for protecting the land. </p>
<p>The argument that fascism was a way to protect the land was persuasive and pervasive. It is a history that continues to resonate at the intersection between labour and politics. Reverberations were felt during the 2016 Brexit referendum and in its aftermath.</p>
<p>The history of the environmental movement in Britain emerges from several strands. Its roots in the extreme right wing are usually ignored. But Williamson belonged to a vocal group who believed organic farming was key to restoring rural Britain’s economic stability and future prosperity. </p>
<h2>Common ground</h2>
<p>It sounds perverse that contemporary organic farming has its origins in fascism. But both the hard left and hard right shared some common ground during the inter-war period. Both were in support of the worker against industrial capital; both were suspicious of mechanization in agriculture; and both argued that power should reside in the collective. </p>
<p>Both also freely used terms like “international banking” as code for a conspiracy against the working classes. Spotting the difference was difficult: For example, Mosley, (founder of the British Union of Fascists) always insisted he came from the left. </p>
<p>Another shared belief was that Britain’s national identity had been founded in the countryside. No figure better represented the ideal of the British character than the farmer, with his physique moulded by work, his hands stained with soil, his leathery face beaten by the weather. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202362/original/file-20180117-53314-14z8s2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202362/original/file-20180117-53314-14z8s2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202362/original/file-20180117-53314-14z8s2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202362/original/file-20180117-53314-14z8s2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202362/original/file-20180117-53314-14z8s2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202362/original/file-20180117-53314-14z8s2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202362/original/file-20180117-53314-14z8s2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A photo of a farm worker from Henry Williamson’s 1941 book ‘Life on the Norfolk Farm’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Henry Williamson Literary Society</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By the 1930s more people lived in cities than rural centres but the ploughman and the shepherd remained emblematic: Staple images from Anglo-Saxon poetry and Medieval manuscripts through to Victorian photography. It was easy to make the equation from this mix of nostalgia and sentimentality that strengthening the rural economy invigorated the national character and vice versa. </p>
<p>Through small-scale, organic farming, Britain would not only rediscover its cultural origins but it would become self-sufficient.</p>
<p>An earlier generation of socialists, led by writer and textile designer William Morris, had advocated something similar: A return to traditional farming methods as a <a href="https://archive.org/details/artbeautyofearth00morrrich">protection against the destruction that mechanization threatened</a> to wreak on the agricultural sector. </p>
<p>Morris’s critical failure lay in his romanticism. What he proposed was essentially a form of self-improvement for men of property but there were no direct benefits for the working class in any of his arguments.</p>
<h2>Protecting British ‘root stock’</h2>
<p>Purity was a key word for the organic farming movement. Beyond the idea of produce free from contaminants, organic farming added lustre to that image of the farmer as being one with the soil. From the moment his pair of hands planted a seed to that when another picked the fruit, produce and process would be untainted. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, this idea of purity invoked another: Eugenics.</p>
<p>It is convenient to forget but eugenics was once a platform for a number of avowed socialists: H. G. Wells, Marie Stopes and John Maynard Keynes all advocated eugenics. </p>
<p>The argument that intellectual, moral and physical weakness could be bred out sounded, if anything, compassionate to people who believed that the answer to the nation’s survival lay with science. </p>
<p>Organic farming was an effort to introduce the same concept of purity to agriculture in order to protect Britain’s root stock. The food placed on the English dinner table would be as wholesome as that image of the farmer.</p>
<h2>Kinship in Husbandry</h2>
<p>Williamson is one of the better known figures from the hard right wing of the organic farming movement but the key thinkers were Rolf Gardiner, Jorion Jenks and Gerard Wallop. </p>
<p>In 1941 Williamson joined them as a founding member of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956793303001110">Kinship in Husbandry</a>, an organization of rural revivalists who believed that organic farming with its return to traditional methods would restore the moral, physical and economic health of the nation.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202512/original/file-20180118-158522-1l7e4kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202512/original/file-20180118-158522-1l7e4kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202512/original/file-20180118-158522-1l7e4kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202512/original/file-20180118-158522-1l7e4kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202512/original/file-20180118-158522-1l7e4kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202512/original/file-20180118-158522-1l7e4kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202512/original/file-20180118-158522-1l7e4kg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Tarka the Otter</em>, the story of an otter living in the Torridge River in Devon, U.K. is a nature writing classic. View of the River Torridge from the Tarka Trail.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Writing in the 1945 manifesto, <em>The Natural Order,</em> H. J. Massingham explained that husbandry was the group’s chosen term because, even though it evoked an earlier age of “hock-carts, wassails, and reaping the corn with songs and sickles,” it also implied a “loving management … acting towards nature in a family spirit.” </p>
<p>Not all the members supported fascism. The poet Adrian Bell argued that Nazism was essentially an urban movement and its platforms on agriculture were misguided. Philip Mairet, who would translate Sartre, also believed that purity and self-sufficiency were central to good farming but rejected right wing politics.</p>
<p>Post war, Kinship in Husbandry’s Nazi links proved an embarrassment, but only for the more moderate members. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180733">Jorion Jenks</a> went on join Eve Balfour in establishing the Soil Association in the late 1940s and he continued to use the charity as a vehicle to espouse his extreme right views into the late 1950s. </p>
<p>The publication of <a href="http://www.rachelcarson.org/SilentSpring.aspx">Rachel Carson’s <em>Silent Spring</em> in 1962</a>, with its exposé of the ways pesticides were poisoning the environment firmly shifted the argument for organic farming away from eugenics and nationalism towards more fundamental issues of public health.</p>
<p>This history challenges the assumption that environmentalism and progressive politics are symbiotic, or at the least inevitably compatible. It also reminds us of uncertainties that still resonate today. </p>
<p>When a working class base of British Labour supported UKIP and <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/after-brexit-red-ukip-prepares-take-labours-northern-heartlands">Brexit</a> during the 2016 European Union referendum, we heard echoes of that inter-war period when the politics of left and right were suddenly difficult to differentiate. </p>
<p>Once again, there were arguments from both sides that by breaking free from Europe, Britain could rediscover a more pure sense of identity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Toohey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Organic farming has roots in 20th century fascism, challenging the assumption that environmentalism and progressive politics are symbiotic.John Toohey, PhD Candidate, Art History, Concordia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/753642017-04-04T00:45:22Z2017-04-04T00:45:22ZHealthy soil is the real key to feeding the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163183/original/image-20170329-8557-1q1xe1z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Planting a diverse blend of crops and cover crops, and not tilling, helps promote soil health.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/87743206@N04/8053614949/in/dateposted/">Catherine Ulitsky, USDA/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the biggest modern myths about agriculture is that organic farming is inherently sustainable. It can be, but it isn’t necessarily. After all, soil erosion from chemical-free tilled fields undermined the Roman Empire and other ancient societies <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520272903">around the world</a>. Other agricultural myths hinder recognizing the potential to restore degraded soils to feed the world using fewer agrochemicals. </p>
<p>When I embarked on a six-month trip to visit farms around the world to research my forthcoming book, <a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?ID=4294993513">“Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life,”</a> the innovative farmers I met showed me that regenerative farming practices can restore the world’s agricultural soils. In both the developed and developing worlds, these farmers rapidly rebuilt the fertility of their degraded soil, which then allowed them to maintain high yields using far less fertilizer and fewer pesticides. </p>
<p>Their experiences, and the results that I saw on their farms in North and South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ghana and Costa Rica, offer compelling evidence that the key to sustaining highly productive agriculture lies in rebuilding healthy, fertile soil. This journey also led me to question three pillars of conventional wisdom about today’s industrialized agrochemical agriculture: that it feeds the world, is a more efficient way to produce food and will be necessary to feed the future. </p>
<h2>Myth 1: Large-scale agriculture feeds the world today</h2>
<p>According to a recent U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report, family farms produce over <a href="http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/260535/icode/">three-quarters of the world’s food</a>. The FAO also estimates that almost three-quarters of all farms worldwide are <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-6_Investing_in_smallholder_agriculture.pdf">smaller than one hectare</a> – about 2.5 acres, or the size of a typical city block. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163190/original/image-20170329-8587-n5b1ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163190/original/image-20170329-8587-n5b1ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163190/original/image-20170329-8587-n5b1ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163190/original/image-20170329-8587-n5b1ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163190/original/image-20170329-8587-n5b1ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163190/original/image-20170329-8587-n5b1ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163190/original/image-20170329-8587-n5b1ng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Ugandan farmer transports bananas to market. Most food consumed in the developing world is grown on small family farms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifpri/12209977313/in/album-72157640285734626/">Svetlana Edmeades/IFPRI/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Only about 1 percent of Americans are farmers today. Yet most of the world’s farmers work the land to feed themselves and their families. So while conventional industrialized agriculture feeds the developed world, most of the world’s farmers work small family farms. A 2016 Environmental Working Group report <a href="http://www.ewg.org/research/feeding-the-world">found</a> that almost 90 percent of U.S. agricultural exports went to developed countries with few hungry people. </p>
<p>Of course the world needs commercial agriculture, unless we all want to live on and work our own farms. But are large industrial farms really the best, let alone the only, way forward? This question leads us to a second myth.</p>
<h2>Myth 2: Large farms are more efficient</h2>
<p>Many high-volume industrial processes exhibit efficiencies at large scale that decrease inputs per unit of production. The more widgets you make, the more efficiently you can make each one. But agriculture is different. A 1989 National Research Council study <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/1208/alternative-agriculture">concluded</a> that “well-managed alternative farming systems nearly always use less synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of production than conventional farms.” </p>
<p>And while mechanization can provide cost and labor efficiencies on large farms, bigger farms do not necessarily produce more food. According to a 1992 agricultural census report, small, diversified farms produce more than twice as much food per acre <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520272903">than large farms do</a>. </p>
<p>Even the <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/595651468195548184/On-the-central-role-of-small-farms-in-African-rural-development-strategies">World Bank</a> endorses small farms as the way to increase agricultural output in developing nations where food security remains a pressing issue. While large farms excel at producing a lot of a particular crop – like corn or wheat – small diversified farms produce more food and more kinds of food per hectare overall. </p>
<h2>Myth 3: Conventional farming is necessary to feed the world</h2>
<p>We’ve all heard proponents of conventional agriculture claim that organic farming is a recipe for global starvation because it produces lower yields. The most extensive yield comparison to date, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396">a 2015 meta-analysis</a> of 115 studies, found that organic production averaged almost 20 percent less than conventionally grown crops, a finding similar to those of prior studies. </p>
<p>But the study went a step further, comparing crop yields on conventional farms to those on organic farms where cover crops were planted and crops were rotated to build soil health. These techniques shrank the yield gap to below 10 percent. </p>
<p>The authors concluded that the actual gap may be much smaller, as they found “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396">evidence of bias in the meta-dataset toward studies reporting higher conventional yields</a>.” In other words, the basis for claims that organic agriculture can’t feed the world depend as much on specific farming methods as on the type of farm. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163194/original/image-20170329-8563-1hdfyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163194/original/image-20170329-8563-1hdfyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163194/original/image-20170329-8563-1hdfyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163194/original/image-20170329-8563-1hdfyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163194/original/image-20170329-8563-1hdfyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163194/original/image-20170329-8563-1hdfyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163194/original/image-20170329-8563-1hdfyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cover crops planted on wheat fields in The Dalles, Oregon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcs_oregon/29653107380/in/album-72157674420338935/">Garrett Duyck, NRCS/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consider too that about a quarter of all food produced worldwide is never eaten. Each year the United States alone throws out <a href="http://www.endhunger.org/PDFs/2014/USDA-FoodLoss-2014.pdf">133 billion pounds of food</a>, more than enough to feed the nearly 50 million Americans who regularly face hunger. So even taken at face value, the oft-cited yield gap between conventional and organic farming is smaller than the amount of food we routinely throw away. </p>
<h2>Building healthy soil</h2>
<p>Conventional farming practices that degrade soil health undermine humanity’s ability to continue feeding everyone <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520272903">over the long run</a>. Regenerative practices like those used on the farms and ranches I visited show that we can readily improve soil fertility on both large farms in the U.S. and on small subsistence farms in the tropics. </p>
<p>I no longer see debates about the future of agriculture as simply conventional versus organic. In my view, we’ve oversimplified the complexity of the land and underutilized the ingenuity of farmers. I now see adopting farming practices that build soil health as the key to a stable and resilient agriculture. And the farmers I visited had cracked this code, adapting <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/09/no-till-farming-is-on-the-rise-thats-actually-a-big-deal/?utm_term=.e2cf5e93305e">no-till methods</a>, cover cropping and complex rotations to their particular soil, environmental and socioeconomic conditions.</p>
<p>Whether they were organic or still used some fertilizers and pesticides, the farms I visited that adopted this transformational suite of practices all reported harvests that consistently matched or exceeded those from neighboring conventional farms after a short transition period. Another message was as simple as it was clear: Farmers who restored their soil <a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?ID=4294993513">used fewer inputs to produce higher yields</a>, which translated into higher profits. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163674/original/image-20170403-21969-1bmzm3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Soil building practices, like no-till and composting, can build soil organic matter and improve soil fertility (click to zoom).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Montgomery</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>No matter how one looks at it, we can be certain that agriculture will soon face another revolution. For agriculture today runs on abundant, cheap oil for fuel and to make fertilizer – and our supply of cheap oil will not last forever. There are already enough people on the planet that we have <a href="http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-10-28/how-long-can-world-feed-itself/">less than a year’s supply of food</a> for the global population on hand at any one time. This simple fact has critical implications for society. </p>
<p>So how do we speed the adoption of a more resilient agriculture? Creating demonstration farms would help, as would carrying out system-scale research to evaluate what works best to adapt specific practices to general principles in different settings. </p>
<p>We also need to reframe our agricultural policies and subsidies. It makes no sense to continue incentivizing conventional practices that degrade soil fertility. We must begin supporting and rewarding farmers who adopt regenerative practices.</p>
<p>Once we see through myths of modern agriculture, practices that build soil health become the lens through which to assess strategies for feeding us all over the long haul. Why am I so confident that regenerative farming practices can prove both productive and economical? The farmers I met showed me they already are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75364/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David R. Montgomery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Conventional wisdom says we need industrial agriculture to feed the world. Not so, says geologist David Montgomery: Practices that focus on creating healthy soil can transform agriculture.David R. Montgomery, Professor of Earth and Space Sciences, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/741242017-03-10T19:04:20Z2017-03-10T19:04:20ZOrganic farming matters - just not in the way you think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160344/original/image-20170310-19259-1er8x5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Looks good, tastes good, but can it feed the world?</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Is organic agriculture the solution to our global food system challenges? That’s been the premise and promise of <a href="http://www.ifoam.bio/en/organic-landmarks/principles-organic-agriculture">the organic movement</a> since its origins in the 1920s: farming that’s healthy, ecological, and socially just. </p>
<p>Many people – from consumers and farmers to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-agriculture-world-hunger">scientists</a> and <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4137e/y4137e00.htm">international organisations</a> – believe that organic agriculture can produce enough nutritious food to feed the world without destroying the environment, while being more resilient to climate change and improving the livelihoods of farmers. </p>
<p>But as with many important issues of our time, there are more passionate opinions about organic agriculture than there is scientific evidence to support them. And there’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-nothing-black-or-white-about-organic-agriculture-6687">nothing black or white about organic agriculture</a>. </p>
<p>For a paper published today in the journal <a href="http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1602638">Science Advances</a>, we systematically and rigorously evaluated the performance of organic versus conventional agriculture on three key fronts – environmental impact, producer and consumer benefits. As much as possible, we based our review on previous quantitative synthesis of the scientific literature – so-called meta-analyses. We also examined whether those studies agree or disagree in their verdicts. </p>
<p>We discovered that organic farming does matter – just not in the way most people think. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159864/original/image-20170307-14966-1yfj6cs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159864/original/image-20170307-14966-1yfj6cs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159864/original/image-20170307-14966-1yfj6cs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159864/original/image-20170307-14966-1yfj6cs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159864/original/image-20170307-14966-1yfj6cs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=623&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159864/original/image-20170307-14966-1yfj6cs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=623&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159864/original/image-20170307-14966-1yfj6cs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=623&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Organic wins on some fronts and loses on others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Environmental impacts</h2>
<p>Compared to a neighbouring conventional farm, an organic farm at first appears to be better for the environment. But that’s not the whole story. Here’s how it breaks down.</p>
<p><strong>What’s good</strong>: Organic farms provide higher biodiversity, hosting more bees, birds and butterflies. They also have higher soil and water quality and emit fewer greenhouse gases. </p>
<p><strong>What’s not-so-good</strong>: Organic farming typically yields less product – about <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-nothing-black-or-white-about-organic-agriculture-6687">19-25%</a> less. Once we account for that efficiency difference and examine environmental performance per amount of food produced, the organic advantage becomes less certain (few studies have examined this question). Indeed, on some variables, such as water quality and greenhouse gas emissions, organic farms may perform worse than conventional farms, because lower yields per hectare can translate into more <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/">environmentally damaging</a> land-clearing.</p>
<h2>Consumer benefits</h2>
<p>The jury’s still out on whether the comsumer is better off, too.</p>
<p><strong>What’s good:</strong> For consumers in countries with weak pesticide regulations, like <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Spurt-in-pesticide-laced-vegetables-across-India/articleshow/49220802.cms">India</a>, organic food reduces pesticide exposure. Organic ingredients also most likely have slightly higher levels of some vitamins and secondary metabolites.</p>
<p><strong>What’s not-so-good:</strong> Scientists <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463045">can’t confirm</a> whether these minor micronutrient differences actually matter for our health. Because the difference in the nutritional value of organic and conventional food is so small, you’d do better just eating an extra apple every day, whether it’s organic or not. Organic food is also more expensive than conventional food at present and therefore inaccessible to poor consumers. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160027/original/image-20170308-24211-1n5ixzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160027/original/image-20170308-24211-1n5ixzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160027/original/image-20170308-24211-1n5ixzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160027/original/image-20170308-24211-1n5ixzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160027/original/image-20170308-24211-1n5ixzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160027/original/image-20170308-24211-1n5ixzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160027/original/image-20170308-24211-1n5ixzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pricy organic ingredients don’t fall within many consumers’ budgets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2915/14712846912_ab6cb18990_b.jpg">Phil Roeder/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Producer benefits</h2>
<p>Organic methods bring certain benefits for farmers, some costs and many unknowns.</p>
<p><strong>What’s good:</strong> Organic agriculture is typically more profitable – up to 35% more, according to <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/06/organic-farming-more-profitable-conventional">a meta-analysis</a> of studies across North America, Europe and India – than conventional farming. Organic also provides more rural employment opportunities because organic management is more labour-intensive than conventional practices. For workers, though, the biggest advantage is that organic decreases their <a href="https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/aExposed%20and%20Ignored%20by%20Farmworker%20Justice%20singles%20compressed.pdf">exposure to toxic agrochemicals</a>.</p>
<p><strong>What’s not-so-good:</strong> We still don’t know whether organic farms pay higher wages or offer better working conditions than conventional farms. Organic farm workers are most likely exploited in similar ways as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beate-andrees/farm-workers-walk-fine-line-between-exploitation-and-forced-labor_b_6653190.html">those tilling the fields on conventional farms</a>. </p>
<h2>The takeaway</h2>
<p>In short, we cannot determine yet whether organic agriculture could feed the world and reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture while providing decent jobs and giving consumers affordable, nutritious food. </p>
<p>It’s a lot to ask of one industry, and there are still just too many unanswered questions. Some of these questions relate to agriculture, such as whether organic farms can eventually close the yield gap with conventional farms and whether there are enough organic fertilisers to produce all the world’s food organically. </p>
<p>But some questions are also about humanity’s collective future. Can people in the rich world learn to change our diet and reduce food waste to avoid having to increase food production as the global population grows? And are enough people willing to work in agriculture to meet the needs of labour-intensive organic farms? </p>
<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="https://www.thinglink.com/card/891393453231964160" type="text/html" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<p>A more useful question is whether we should continue to eat organic food and expand investment in organic farming. Here the answer is a definitive yes. </p>
<p>Organic agriculture shows significant promises in many areas. We would be foolish not to consider it an important tool in developing more sustainable global agriculture.</p>
<p>Only <a href="http://www.organic-world.net/yearbook/yearbook-2017/infographics.html">1% of agricultural land</a> is organically farmed worldwide. If organic land continues to expand at the same rate that it has over the past decade, it will take another century for all agriculture to be organic. </p>
<p>But organic farming’s influence goes far beyond that 1% acreage. Over the past 50 years, organic farms have provided conventional agriculture with examples of new ways to farm and acted as a testing ground for a different set of management practices, from <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/crop-diversity-and-rotation.html">diversifying crop rotations</a> and <a href="http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/Farming/">composting</a> to using <a href="http://msue.anr.msu.edu/topic/info/cover_crops">cover crops</a> and <a href="http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/resourcedisplay/281/">conservation tillage</a>. Conventional agriculture has neglected these sustainable practices for too long.</p>
<p>So yes, you should identify and support <a href="http://www.polyfacefarms.com">those organic farms</a> that are doing a great job of producing environmentally friendly, economically viable, and socially just food. Conscientious consumers can also push to improve organic farming where it is not doing so well – for example on yields and worker rights. </p>
<p>As scientists, we must close some of the critical knowledge gaps about this farming system to better understand its achievements and help address its challenges. </p>
<p>But in the meantime, everyone can learn from successful organic farms and help improve the other 99% of agriculture that’s feeding the world today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74124/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Navin Ramankutty receives funding from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Canada Research Chairs program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Genome Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Verena Seufert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is organic produce better for you? Can organic farming feed the world? Those might be the wrong questions.Verena Seufert, Postdoctoral fellow, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British ColumbiaNavin Ramankutty, Professor, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/657362016-10-31T18:50:42Z2016-10-31T18:50:42ZOrganic farming gets a bad rap. Why it shouldn’t<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141633/original/image-20161013-31345-8g1qx7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Organic farming has numerous benefits for people.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Carbon in the atmosphere is dangerous but in the soil it is beneficial. The environmental benefits of organic farming are closely connected to soil carbon. Carbon is the major constituent of soil organic matter, which is vital in holding moisture and plant foods <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0100e/a0100e04.htm">in the soil</a>. </p>
<p>Soil organic matter, when biologically active, is called colloidal humus. Farmers call this compost. It is what earthworms also produce from soil organic matter like dead plants, when soil conditions allow air into the soil. Under these conditions, the soil develops a crumb structure like fresh bread, and the beneficial microbes in the soil are <a href="http://www.ifoam.bio">able to thrive</a>. This keeps pathogens that cause plant diseases under control. </p>
<p>For 100 years, organic farmers have been arguing that colloidal humus should be at the heart of agricultural production. It suppresses pathogens, supports beneficial soil microbes, holds soil moisture and keeps plant nutrients available to tiny plant feeder roots.</p>
<p>The word organic has nothing to do with organic chemistry even though carbon-rich soil organic matter is important to organic farming. Organic derives instead from the word organism. Organic farmers try to combine annual and perennial plants, animals, soil micro-organisms and human beings in an efficient, creative partnership. </p>
<p>There have been several disinformation <a href="http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be-harmful-the-truth-behind-organic-produce-doug-smith/">campaigns</a> which claim that organic agriculture requires three times the area to feed the same number of people. These campaigns also <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/15/organics-versus-gmo-why-the-debate/">claim</a> that organic farming is energy inefficient and that the food produced is not significantly healthier. </p>
<p>The truth is that organic farming systems are efficient and productive. Yes, yield levels are about 20% lower, but costs are also <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X">significantly lower</a>. Because soil biology is improved, the quality of produce is better. As for claims that organic farming cannot feed the world, there are some cases where 20% more land would be required, but many instances in Africa where converting to organic systems has doubled or trebled production.</p>
<h2>Organic farming in Africa</h2>
<p>Traditional farming in Africa used to include some organic practices. Ugandan organic farmers have used these to build a major <a href="http://www.nogamu.org.ug">National Organic Agricultural Movement of Uganda</a>. They supply the local market and in 2015 <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3294e/i3294e.pdf">exported $42 million</a> worth of certified organic coffee, cotton, cashews, vanilla, shea butter, pineapples and bananas. This compares with a total of $180 million of agricultural produce exported for 2015, meaning organic produce is now about a quarter of Ugandan agricultural exports, which makes it unique <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/uganda/exports">in Africa</a>.</p>
<p>South Africa has been very slow to develop organic farming. The country has a highly concentrated agricultural sector. Just 10,000 farmers are responsible for 80% of South African food sales. Conventional farmers still use large quantities of chemical fertilisers and poisons, as well as genetically engineered seeds and animal antibiotics and growth hormones.</p>
<p>This high level of concentration also means that biodiversity on farms has suffered. Today, 90% of South Africa’s food energy and protein comes from only <a href="https://www.cbd.int/agro/whatstheproblem.shtml">15 plant and eight animal species</a>. </p>
<p>The controversy surrounding organic foods hinges on two factors: are they healthier, and are they affordable? Organic farming avoids external purchased inputs like agro-chemicals, synthetic fertilisers and genetically engineered seeds. This means those who sell such substances often see the steady rise of organic agriculture as a threat to their livelihoods. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141631/original/image-20161013-31333-1pnelhw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People prefer to buy their fruit and vegetables straight from farmers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Principles</h2>
<p>Organic farming is distinct in seven ways, derived from the four principles developed by the <a href="http://www.ifoam.bio/en/about-us">International Foundation for Organic Agriculture</a>: </p>
<p><strong>1. Organic food is produced with fewer chemicals</strong> </p>
<p>For a product to receive organic certification, the farmer needs to show that pests, diseases and weeds were countered without the <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/faq-becoming-certified">use of poisons</a>. Agrochemicals commonly used by farmers are not part of organic production.</p>
<p><strong>2. Organic farming has a quality guarantee</strong></p>
<p>Certified organic agriculture requires stringent annual inspections by qualified inspectors from accredited certification <a href="http://www.ifoam.bio">bodies</a>. These bodies are regulated by a global standard for product certification which also regulates laboratories. </p>
<p>Although organic certification is expensive and difficult for farmers, many discerning consumers are confident when buying certified organic products. They believe that they are <a href="http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2009/09/14/french-research-gives-boost-to-organic-food.html">supporting sustainable agriculture</a> and providing healthy food for their families.</p>
<p><strong>3. Organic farming has significant food quality benefits</strong></p>
<p>Apart from the absence of added poisons, the way organic food is produced means that there are generally less than half of the nitrates found in conventional <a href="http://www.nefg-organic.org">food</a>. This study from Newcastle University, shows that here are also considerably more antioxidants, vitamins and good fats, and that protein levels are also often higher. </p>
<p><strong>4. Animal welfare and social justice are respected</strong></p>
<p>Organic regulations demand that animals should be allowed to carry out their natural behaviours and to lead a more natural life. Pigs must be able to root, hens must be able to scratch, ruminants must have grass to graze. And those working on organic farms must also be <a href="http://www.newfarm.org/features/0804/worker/">fairly</a> treated as part of a team.</p>
<p><strong>5. Shorter value chain through local organic markets</strong></p>
<p>Farmers’ markets are growing in most cities, on all five continents, as discerning consumers demand natural, healthy food which is not industrially produced. They prefer to buy directly from the farmers. This is because there are reductions in ecological footprint and packaging, and in water, carbon and energy use.</p>
<p><strong>6. The local economy benefits</strong></p>
<p>Resources circulate locally and form part of a sustainable community investment process. Local cuisine and food sovereignty are respected. Organic food systems are developed to support local farmers, home industries, traders and food outlets, whether they provide school lunches, meals or catering services, as has been the case in Uganda, Denmark, Sweden and India.</p>
<p><strong>7. Sustainable food systems are supported</strong></p>
<p>This all contributes to the development of sustainable organic food <a href="https://organicfoodsystem.net/programme/the-organic-food-system-programme-long-2/">systems</a>. The principles of health, care, fairness and ecology are respected. The hidden costs of poison, pollution and waste of water and fuel are avoided. </p>
<p>The choice appears to be this: pay a fair price now for quality food, or pay later for health care, climate change, soil degradation, water shortages and pollution.</p>
<p>So, while production levels are often slightly lower than industrialised farming, the costs to the farmer, to the environment and to human health more than make up for this.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65736/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Raymond Auerbach receives funding from South African National Research Foundation. He is affiliated with IFOAM - Organics International. </span></em></p>Organic farming has many benefits. It can better people’s lives and it’s good for biodiversity and the climate.Raymond Auerbach, Associate Professor, Soil Science & Plant Production at the School of Natural Resource Management, Nelson Mandela UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613672016-07-26T19:52:31Z2016-07-26T19:52:31ZTen facts you need to know about the chicken and eggs on your table<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131887/original/image-20160726-31202-1i7df9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are a lot of myths about the way chickens are farmed in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When I am asked by friends what I do for living, I tend to raise eyebrows because my job is somewhat odd to many city people. That’s because I’m a poultry nutritionist. </p>
<p>Typically, the conversation turns into a friendly debate on the myths around eating chicken. Do we feed chicken hormones? Are any chickens genetically engineered? Do free range chickens taste better? And so on. </p>
<p>So to save everyone some time, here are some of the most common questions I get asked, and the answers I give.</p>
<h2>1) Should you buy hormone-free chicken?</h2>
<p>The truth is that no chickens or eggs produced in Australia contain added hormones, and they have not been given hormones for decades. </p>
<p>Independent tests by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, as part of the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/food/nrs">National Residue Survey</a>, confirm that Australian chicken meat is free of added hormones. </p>
<p>Not that it would be easy to give them hormones anyway. Growth hormones are proteins similar to insulin used to treat diabetes. </p>
<p>Like insulin, they can only be injected into the body because they are broken down in the digestive tract. Therefore, it is pointless to provide chickens growth hormones in their food because they would be rendered ineffective. </p>
<p>And given a typical commercial shed may accommodate 40,000 to 60,000 birds per shed, it is simply logistically impossible to inject hormones into each chicken.</p>
<h2>2) Are meat chickens genetically modified to grow fast?</h2>
<p>Our chickens are not genetically modified, and their genes have not been altered artificially. Modern meat chickens grow more quickly and are more “meaty” than chicken breeds available decades ago due to selective breeding and optimal nutrition. </p>
<p>Just like pedigree dog breeders breed their puppies for desired traits, selective breeding involves those animals that show the desirable characteristics being selected as the parents for the next generation in the breeding program, and this process being repeated over many generations. </p>
<p>In the 1960s, the goal of selective breeding in meat chickens was simply increased growth rate and increased meat production. Nowadays, the focus has changed from growth and yield to a broad spectrum of outcomes, with a clear emphasis on improving animal welfare, reproduction and overall fitness.</p>
<h2>3) Are meat chickens raised in cages?</h2>
<p>All commercial meat chickens are kept in large poultry sheds on litter floors, covered with things like rice hulls or wood shavings. They are not kept in cages. </p>
<p>Additionally, some meat chickens also have access to the outdoors, such as those often referred to as either free-range or organic. A simple comparison is shown below.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zSK2S/2/" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="430"></iframe>
<h2>4) Are free range chickens healthier?</h2>
<p>Not always. In fact, free range chickens are more likely to catch diseases, get injured and die earlier than those kept inside. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22678619">In the UK</a>, free range egg layers have a mortality rate of 8-10%, which is far higher than caged hens’ death rate of 2-4%. </p>
<p>The contact between free range chickens and wild birds also increases the risk of spreading bird flu. And birds can die from over-consuming grass. </p>
<p>Cannibalism can also happen in egg layers and it is a big challenge for free range egg production systems in particular. </p>
<p>We always assume animals behave in a civilised manner. But the fact is free range layer hens may peck each other to death. Cannibalism in poultry is part of their natural behaviour and, unfortunately, it has proven difficult to get rid of.</p>
<h2>5) Do free range or organic chickens taste better?</h2>
<p>There is very little data supporting the idea that free range or organic chickens actually taste better than conventionally farmed ones. </p>
<p>Commercial meat chickens do not tend to like running around, as they were selected to maximise their growth. So it’s a myth that more exercise makes chicken meat more tender.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131904/original/image-20160726-23692-1fpokvi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is it organic? Does it matter?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>6) Why are some meat chickens yellow in colour?</h2>
<p>In some cultures, chickens with yellow fat and skin are considered to be better quality. However, this is not true. </p>
<p>The yellowness of the skin, fat and egg yolk depends on the level of beta carotene in the diets. So those yellow chickens are fed with a corn-based diet, which is higher in beta carotene.</p>
<h2>7) Are meat and egg laying chickens the same breed?</h2>
<p>The meat and egg industries have different requirements, and use different breeds of bird.</p>
<p>The only eggs produced in the meat industry are those needed to produce the next generation of chickens. </p>
<p>Ross and Cobb birds are the two common commercial breeds selected for meat production. </p>
<p>The egg industry houses their hens quite differently and uses very different breeds of chickens, which are bred selectively over many generations to exhibit optimal egg producing characteristics. </p>
<p>The common breeds of laying hens in Australia are the Hyline Brown and the Isa Brown. </p>
<h2>8) Why are some eggs white and others brown?</h2>
<p>The colour of eggshells is the result of pigments being deposited during egg formation. The type of pigment depends upon the breed and is genetically determined. </p>
<p>To get a hint about the egg colour, look at the colour of the chicken’s ear lobes!</p>
<p>Interestingly, people have strong preferences for different egg shell colours in different markets. In Australia and parts of Asia, brown eggs are preferred, whereas in the US and Japan, people prefer white eggs.</p>
<p>The nutritional value of the egg only depends on the chickens’ diet, not the system of production or the colour of the egg shell. </p>
<p>For example, it has been shown that vitamin D-enhanced eggs can be produced if the diet is supplemented with high level of an active form of vitamin D. </p>
<h2>9) What types of chickens do restaurants use?</h2>
<p>It is often difficult to tell. </p>
<p>Fast food chains are more likely to use chickens produced conventionally unless specially labelled. Restaurants vary in the chickens they use. If you prefer a particular type of chicken, be sure to ask before you order. </p>
<h2>10) Does Australia import chickens from elsewhere?</h2>
<p>All the raw chicken meat available in Australia is grown in Australia.</p>
<p>According to Australian Chicken Meat Federation, we consumed <a href="http://www.chicken.org.au/index.php">45.3kg of chicken meat</a> per person in 2015, which means 870 grams of chicken meat per week. </p>
<p>Last year, more than 1.1 million tonnes of chicken meat was produced in Australia and almost all of it was consumed here. </p>
<p>The claim “produced in Australia” is applicable to almost all chicken meat sold in Australia with only very small quantities of cooked chicken meat being imported from New Zealand and some canned products containing chicken also potentially imported.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Sonia will be online for an Author Q&A between 1:30 and 2:30 on Wednesday, 27 July, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.</em></p>
<p><em>NOTE: The word “happier” was removed from question number 4 as the answer focuses exclusively on the health of the chickens.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61367/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Liu receives funding from several sources including Rural Industries R&D Corporation Chicken Meat Program. The program is funded by statutory levies paid by industry participants. Other sources include broiler integrators and suppliers of feed ingredients including enzymes and amino acids.</span></em></p>Do organic chickens taste better? Why are some eggs white and others brown? Are free range chickens healthier? There are a lot of questions about chicken production. Here are the facts.Sonia Yun Liu, Lecturer in Poultry Nutrition, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/567732016-03-25T09:39:34Z2016-03-25T09:39:34ZCuba’s sustainable agriculture at risk in U.S. thaw<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116410/original/image-20160324-17838-1qwk6rw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Organic farm, Alamar. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mlukesh/20167757908/in/photolist-wJa2MW-uL47Zw-7R7K6A-5hw7mQ-4Z6CjG-4jhCfQ-62DEdb-e3BYWs-9DAefa-5bGZuz-9DCPcs-9DDxiW-aUZtoF-9c6Szj-4HqVMr-qi2bzc-aUZscR-9W31Dx-5bMjHw-5bLKG3-5bH1Ge-5bGuUZ-aiCToV-5bL3ff-5bGwbn-9DDsnU-qhS3sz-9DD6oJ-9DzH5k-9DCBVG-5bGhRM-5bMfj9-5bGFGx-5bLT69-5bLsCo-5bGVgR-5bMuYf-5bGHGF-5bGsPP-oBXnzZ-5bGEK2-5bGWhB-duA1gP-9DArLa-5bLPfy-owAhW-9DAJ7p-u6pcv-Yyng2-SW8d">Melanie Lukesh Reed/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Obama’s trip to Cuba this week accelerated the warming of U.S.-Cuban relations. Many people in both countries believe that normalizing relations will spur investment that can help Cuba develop its economy and improve life for its citizens. </p>
<p>But in agriculture, U.S. investment could cause harm instead. </p>
<p>For the past 35 years I have studied agroecology in most countries in Central and South America. Agroecology is an approach to farming that developed in the late 1970s in Latin America as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947">a reaction against the top-down, technology-intensive and environmentally destructive strategy</a> that characterizes modern industrial agriculture. It encourages local production by small-scale farmers, using sustainable strategies and combining Western knowledge with traditional expertise. </p>
<p>Cuba took this approach out of necessity when its economic partner, the Soviet bloc, dissolved in the early 1990s. As a result, Cuban farming has become a leading example of ecological agriculture. </p>
<p>But if relations with U.S. agribusiness companies are not managed carefully, Cuba could revert to an industrial approach that relies on mechanization, transgenic crops and agrochemicals, rolling back the revolutionary gains that its <em>campesinos</em> have achieved.</p>
<h2>The shift to peasant agroecology</h2>
<p>For several decades after Cuba’s 1959 revolution, socialist bloc countries accounted for nearly all of its foreign trade. </p>
<p>The government <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture/">devoted 30 percent of agricultural land to sugarcane for export, while importing 57 percent of Cuba’s food supply</a>. Farmers relied on tractors, massive amounts of pesticide and fertilizer inputs, all supplied by Soviet bloc countries. By the 1980s <a href="http://www.academia.edu/5106454/AGROECOLOGICAL_REVOLUTION_The_Farmer-to-Farmer_Movement_of_the_ANAP_in_Cuba">agricultural pests were increasing, soil quality was degrading and yields of some key crops like rice had begun to decline</a>.</p>
<p>When Cuban trade with the Soviet bloc ended in the early 1990s, food production collapsed due to the loss of imported fertilizers, pesticides, tractors and petroleum. The situation was so bad that Cuba posted the worst growth in per capita food production in all of Latin America and the Caribbean. </p>
<p>But then farmers started adopting agroecological techniques, with support from Cuban scientists. </p>
<p>Thousands of oxen replaced tractors that could not function due to lack of petroleum and spare parts. Farmers substituted green manures for chemical fertilizers and artisanally produced biopesticides for insecticides. At the same time, Cuban policymakers adopted a range of agrarian reform and decentralization policies that encouraged forms of production where groups of farmers grow and market their produce collectively.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116415/original/image-20160324-17817-8t9049.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116415/original/image-20160324-17817-8t9049.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116415/original/image-20160324-17817-8t9049.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116415/original/image-20160324-17817-8t9049.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116415/original/image-20160324-17817-8t9049.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116415/original/image-20160324-17817-8t9049.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116415/original/image-20160324-17817-8t9049.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Havana market.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=Re3yel-9RvJIsLFmRwGEBw&searchterm=cuba%20market&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=362980901">Julia Dorofeeva/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Cuba reoriented its agriculture to depend less on imported chemical inputs and imported equipment, food production rebounded. From 1996 though 2005, per capita food production in Cuba <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0800e/a0800e.pdf">increased by 4.2 percent yearly</a> during a period when production was stagnant across Latin America and the Caribbean. </p>
<p>In the mid-2000s, the Ministry of Agriculture dismantled all “inefficient state companies” and government-owned farms, endorsed the creation of 2,600 new small urban and suburban farms, and allowed farming on some three million hectares of unused state lands. </p>
<p><a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007545304561">Urban gardens</a>, which first sprang up during the economic crisis of the early 1990s, have developed into an <a href="http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/greenercities/en/GGCLAC/havana.html">important food source</a>. </p>
<p>Today Cuba has 383,000 urban farms, covering 50,000 hectares of otherwise unused land and producing more than 1.5 million tons of vegetables. The most productive urban farms yield up to 20 kg of food per square meter, the highest rate in the world, using no synthetic chemicals. Urban farms <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture/">supply 50 to 70 percent or more</a> of all the fresh vegetables consumed in cities such as Havana and Villa Clara. </p>
<h2>The risks of opening up</h2>
<p>Now Cuba’s agriculture system is under increasing pressure to deliver harvests for export and for Cuba’s burgeoning tourist markets. Part of the production is shifting away from feeding local and regional markets, and increasingly focusing on feeding tourists and producing organic tropical products for export. </p>
<p>President Obama hopes to open the door for U.S. businesses to sell goods to Cuba. In Havana last Monday during Obama’s visit, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack <a href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/03/0069.xml">signed an agreement</a> with his Cuban counterpart, Agriculture Minister Gustavo Rodriguez Rollero, to promote sharing of ideas and research. </p>
<p>“U.S. producers are eager to help meet Cuba’s need for healthy, safe, nutritious food,” Vilsack said. The <a href="http://www.usagcoalition.com/">U.S. Agriculture Coalition for Cuba</a>, which was launched in 2014 to lobby for an end to the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, includes more than 100 agricultural companies and trade groups. Analysts <a href="http://www.agriculture.com/news/policy/cubas-food-potential_4-ar49395">estimate</a> that U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba could reach US$1.2 billion if remaining regulations are relaxed and trade barriers are lifted, a market that U.S. agribusiness wants to capture. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116416/original/image-20160324-17835-7jucwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116416/original/image-20160324-17835-7jucwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116416/original/image-20160324-17835-7jucwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116416/original/image-20160324-17835-7jucwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116416/original/image-20160324-17835-7jucwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116416/original/image-20160324-17835-7jucwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116416/original/image-20160324-17835-7jucwf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Alabama Congresswoman Terri Sewell tour a Havana farmers’ market, November 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/22985044162/in/photolist-9ZakZE-9Zai81-9Z7nhP-a4uScL-9Z7hnR-9Zacuw-9Z7tBp-B13m2w-9ZaaWh-B27mQS-B1uNRk-A6psED-B2eh22-A6gpiq-ArD4RR-AoRQpH-B4h59n-B4h5e2-AYVLhQ-Aqzb9V-Apk2Bg-B2ehfZ-Apkd7q-AmxP4d-AofXDR-AmxwPt-y61LS5-A6gp5j-A3u43C-B6kzfR-A8jKfm-AtGiBt-A8sR7z-B5mEzB-AmxwNM-AYjZBw">US Department of Agriculture/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When agribusinesses invest in developing countries, they seek economies of scale. This encourages concentration of land in the hands of a few corporations and standardization of small-scale production systems. In turn, these changes force small farmers off of their lands and lead to the abandonment of local crops and traditional farming ways. The expansion of transgenic crops and agrofuels in <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/oxfam-rioplus20-case-study-brazil-jun2012.pdf">Brazil</a>, <a href="http://world.time.com/2013/08/09/in-paraguay-rural-farmers-fear-the-spread-of-soy/">Paraguay</a> and <a href="http://lab.org.uk/bolivia-big-changes-planned-for-agriculture">Bolivia</a> since the 1990s are examples of this process.</p>
<p>If U.S. industrial agriculture expands into Cuba, there is a risk that it could destroy the complex social network of agroecological small farms that more than 300,000 <em>campesinos</em> have built up over the past several decades through farmer-to-farmer horizontal exchanges of knowledge. </p>
<p>This would reduce the diversity of crops that Cuba produces and harm local economies and food security. If large businesses displace small-scale farmers, agriculture will move toward export crops, increasing the ranks of unemployed. There is nothing wrong with small farmers capturing a share of export markets, as long as it does not mean neglecting their roles as local food producers. The Cuban government thus will have to protect <em>campesinos</em> by not importing food products that peasants produce.</p>
<p>Cuba still imports some of its food, including U.S. products such as poultry and soybean meal. Since agricultural sales to Cuba were legalized in 2000, U.S. agricultural exports have totaled <a href="http://www.fas.usda.gov/data/us-agricultural-exports-cuba-have-substantial-room-growth">about $5 billion</a>. However, yearly sales have fallen from a high of $658 million in 2008 to $300 million in 2014. </p>
<p>U.S. companies would like to regain some of the market share that they have lost to the European Union and Brazil. </p>
<p>There is broad debate over how heavily Cuba relies on imports to feed its population: the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that imports make up 60 to 80 percent of Cubans’ caloric intake, but other assessments are <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture/">much lower</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, Cuba has the potential to <a href="http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/library/213889">produce enough food with agroecological methods</a> to feed its 11 million inhabitants. Cuba has about six million hectares of fairly level land and another million gently sloping hectares that can be used for cropping. More than half of this land remains uncultivated, and the productivity of both land and labor, as well as the efficiency of resource use, in the rest of this farm area are still low. </p>
<p>We have <a href="http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture/">calculated</a> that if all peasant farms and cooperatives adopted diversified agroecological designs, Cuba would be able to produce enough to feed its population, supply food to the tourist industry and even export some food to help generate foreign currency. </p>
<p>President Raul Castro has <a href="http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2016-03-09/president-barack-obamas-visit-to-cuba">stated</a> that while opening relations with the U.S. has some benefits, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We will not renounce our ideals of independence and social justice, or surrender even a single one of our principles, or concede a millimeter in the defense of our national sovereignty. We have won this sovereign right with great sacrifices and at the cost of great risks. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cuba’s small farmers control only 25 percent of the nation’s agricultural land but produce over 65 percent of the country’s food, contributing significantly to the island’s sovereignity. Their agroecological achievements represent a true legacy of Cuba’s revolution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Miguel Altieri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cuban farming is a model of agroecology – growing food without heavy use of fossil fuel or chemicals. But closer relations with the U.S. could push Cuba back toward large-scale industrial farming.Miguel Altieri, Professor of Agroecology, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/513182015-12-08T19:08:34Z2015-12-08T19:08:34ZGM crops can benefit organic farmers too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104785/original/image-20151208-3139-cekgah.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically modified soybeans.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Bogdan Cristel</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you eaten organic food today? If you have eaten anything, then technically you’ve eaten organic. By definition, all food is organic, it just may not have been grown under industry standards, such as Australian Certified Organic (<a href="http://aco.net.au/">ACO</a>).</p>
<p>Most people who choose to eat certified organic do so because they believe it is cleaner and greener, or chemical free. But the most modern cultivated plants are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and so are precluded from being certified organic.</p>
<p>The Australian Organic organisation <a href="http://austorganic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Consumer_Standards_Final_21.pdf">says</a> that’s because there are no long-term studies on human health. </p>
<p>Prince Charles <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3349308/Prince-Charles-warns-GM-crops-risk-causing-the-biggest-ever-environmental-disaster.html">has warned</a> that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops is the biggest environmental disaster of all time.</p>
<p>The Australian Greens <a href="http://greens.org.au/GMO">argue that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] genetically modified foods have still not been proven safe […] Crop yields have not increased, but the use of pesticides on our food has. The only ones profiting from GM are the large GM companies.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>But the research says different</h2>
<p>Perhaps the Greens need to brush up on the science behind their claims. In the most comprehensive meta-analysis (of 147 publications) to date, researchers from Goettingen University <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25365303">have concluded</a> that the adoption of GM technology has:</p>
<ul>
<li>Reduced pesticide use by 37%</li>
<li>Increased crop yield by 22%</li>
<li>Increased farmer profits by 68%.</li>
</ul>
<p>The yield and profit gains are considerably higher in developing countries than in developed countries, and 53% of GM crops are grown in developing countries. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Piggott/publication/237717600_THE_NET_BENEFITS_INCLUDING_CONVENIENCE_OF_ROUNDUP_READY_SOYBEANS_RESULTS_FROM_A_NATIONAL_SURVEY/links/5410fc760cf2df04e75d6c58.pdf">survey</a> in the United States uncovered great difference in motivation among farmers who adopted GM herbicide-resistant soybean. Farmers like the no-till and low chemical use attributes. Even when it did not increase profitability, they enjoyed the increase in farm safety and particularly the safety of their families when using less herbicide with very low toxicity.</p>
<p>A similar <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x/abstract">study</a> of the same soybeans in Argentina showed that total productivity increased by 10%, and more than half of the benefit had gone to the consumer.</p>
<p>In 2012, a joint Chinese-French <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html">study</a> on GM cotton showed that insecticide usage more than halved, and the survival of beneficial insects had a positive impact on pest control. Since they adopted genetically modified <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_cotton">Bt cotton</a>, India has been producing twice as much cotton from the same land area with 65% less insecticide.</p>
<h2>What do organic farmers really want?</h2>
<p>Organic farmers really do care for their land and want to balance their impact on the land with producing healthier foods and improving the health of the soil. </p>
<p>But organic farms use <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html">more land and labour</a> to produce the same amount of produce as conventional agriculture. That’s the major reason you <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/we-plough-millions-into-expensive-organic-food/story-fnagkbpv-1226578226483">pay more</a> for organic products. </p>
<p>Organic farmers will maintain that if you can improve soil health, you can reduce the impact of pests and diseases. In fact, most farmers in Australia will say that, organic or not. </p>
<p>It works for some of the soil-borne problems but, not surprisingly, weeds really like healthy soils too. And fungal spores, plant-eating insects and aphids harbouring pathogenic viruses can and will travel a long way to get a piece of those healthy plants.</p>
<p>With all crop production, there is an element of biological warfare. No matter how hard any farmer tries, her crop will often need a little help to fight back.</p>
<h2>All farmers use some ‘inputs’</h2>
<p>So reluctantly, there will come a time when a farmer will have to use chemicals, or allowed “inputs” (remember that organic agriculture is chemical-free). They include things such as copper, rotenone, acetic acid, light petroleum derivatives, sodium chloride, boric acid and sulfur. </p>
<p>Different organic certifiers allow different “inputs”. Let’s use the case of the potato, which infamously succumbed to potato blight and precipitated the great Irish diaspora of the 19th century. </p>
<p>Potato blight is still around and organic potatoes succumb just like others, so farmers are allowed to apply copper sprays to control the fungus. After repeated applications, some soils accumulated toxic levels of copper, hence in 2001 the European Union (EU) and Australian organic certifiers limited application to 8kg/ha annually. </p>
<p>In 2006, the EU dropped this to 6kg/ha, and subsequently Germany and Switzerland cut further to 3-4kg/ha while Scandinavian countries banned the use of copper in agriculture, organic or conventional. Organic potato yields remain at 50% that of conventional yields.</p>
<p>In 2011, BASF launched a potato (Fortuna) that was totally <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2a1906dc-98f7-11e3-a32f-00144feab7de.html">resistant to potato late blight</a>, and it could be cultivated without the need for fungicidal sprays, including copper. The potato contained two genes from a wild Mexican potato relative, and except for the fact that it was a GMO, it would be perfect as a clean and green organic potato crop. </p>
<p>Sadly, European agriculture <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21294487">rejected</a> Fortuna potatoes.</p>
<h2>Reduced emissions</h2>
<p>There can be other benefits in GM crops, beyond yield and resistance. Rice produces 10% of the world’s methane emissions so imagine if somebody could reduce emissions by 90%, and make plants with larger seeds containing more energy. </p>
<p>Chuangxin Sun’s group at Swedish Agricultural University has done <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14673.html">precisely that</a> by transferring a single gene from barley to rice.</p>
<p>If all the world’s rice used this technology, it would be the equivalent of closing down 150 coal-fired power stations or removing 120 million cars from the road annually.</p>
<p>With many other plant scientists, I propose that the case-by-case scrutiny of GM crops would allow the organic industry to show it is willing to use the smartest technologies for improving the sustainable productivity of food and fibre production.</p>
<p>Many labs around the world, including those in my building, are full of bright young innovative scientists who want to make the world cleaner and greener. </p>
<p>We have GM crop plants with enhanced nutritional qualities, pest and disease resistance, larger grain sizes and the ability to produce more food with lower fertiliser inputs. Many of these plants have been modified with only a few DNA letters altered from the “wild” genes. </p>
<p>Adoption would massively improve the productivity of organic agriculture, and the productivity boost would help make organic food price competitive. So let’s talk about GM organics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Godwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Grains R&D Corporation, Rural Industries R&D Corporation, Qld Government, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
In addition he has previously received funding from a seed company Advanta Seeds as part of ARC Linkage grants. He was once awarded an ARC Linkage grant with BASF as industrial partner to produce starch polymers for industrial use but after a change in personnel, BASF withdrew from the grant, hence $0 was received. In the past he has received research funding from the OECD, SIDA (Swedish AID), AusAID, Sugar Research Australia, Dairy Innovation Australia, SEQ Council of Mayors, CSIRO and DAAD (German International Academic Exchange).
He is a current member of the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Department of Health.</span></em></p>Scientists are developing GM crops that don’t need pesticides and other chemicals to help them grow. Isn’t that what organic farmers want too?Ian Godwin, Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/353202014-12-15T06:20:35Z2014-12-15T06:20:35ZOrganic farming techniques are closing gap on conventional yields<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67104/original/image-20141212-6033-sfamu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eat greener greens, they're better for the planet.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/galant/2745810209/in/photolist-5bCZHk-96WaSe-5kQRqd-5bCXBk-5nR8hS-5nLSjt-5qUyvE-5sYJEz-5t49bh-5kQQMf-3HxNEr-4R2ABk-nCofnv-5bCWxK-32Kugp-7NKf9C-7NKeW7-7NFhki-7NK9tC-7NKg3E-kuHrHV-5sYJTD-5nR8p9-5FL3ta-a1hkND-4R6PXu-cXeAR-6Cs6V2-7Sgqed-5FKZ2X-5yJDFi-5nLSkT-5yNXmS-5xhPFg-35sQhx-5qUyrA-5qQdT2-5CMmMT-5qQeek-5xhNPp-5xndjw-6jRD7F-8wXZiC-5CMmQX-a5Hbf1-o1VWXX-5FQf9u-5Wgm7s-g4ZcJ4-4PdKsF">thebittenword.com/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The unintended consequences of our agricultural food system – polluted air and water, dead zones in coastal seas, soil erosion – have profound <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/108/50/20260.short">implications</a> for <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4489030">human</a> <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7422/abs/nature11585.html">health</a> and the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470800058X">environment</a>. So more sustainable agricultural practices are needed as soon as possible. </p>
<p>Some farmers have turned to less chemically-intensive techniques to reduce the negative impact of agriculture, such as organic farming, which has been <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12219/full">shown</a> to <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4431524&fileId=S0889189300000588">outperform conventional farming</a> by many standards of environmental sustainability. The question is whether we can meet these environmental standards and still meet the demand for food, which is predicted to rise substantially in the next 50 years.</p>
<h2>Comparing food systems</h2>
<p>In our new <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396">study</a>, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, we found that organic farming systems, when done right, come close to matching the productivity of conventional systems. </p>
<p>Designing a single experiment that could possibly represent the huge variation in crops, weather and soil necessary to get a complete answer is impossible. Instead, we examined the many specific studies that have already been conducted and combined their results – a meta-analysis. We compiled studies from across the globe that compared organic and conventional yields over three decades, representing more than 1,000 comparisons of 52 crop species from 38 countries.</p>
<p>This isn’t the first time researchers have attempted to <a href="https://theconversation.com/organic-farming-benefits-go-beyond-the-food-into-the-field-22733">answer this question</a>, but previous studies have had conflicting results. Combining studies carried out by different scientists for different reasons is a big challenge. Depending on what data is included and how it is handled, answers can vary substantially. Many <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X">previous studies</a> <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html%3FWT.ec_id=NATURE-20120510">found</a> organic yields were 8-25% lower than conventional systems. Another <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ldr.696/abstract">study</a> found that organic farming outperformed conventional in developing countries. In revisiting this question, we used the most extensive dataset to date and methods that try to account for the complexity of the data.</p>
<h2>A mirror to nature</h2>
<p>We found that although organic crop yields are about 19% lower than conventional yields, certain management practises appear to significantly reduce this gap. In fact, planting multiple different crops at the same time (polyculture) and planting a sequence of crops (crop rotation) on an organic farm cut the difference in yield in half. Interestingly, both these practices are based on techniques that mimic natural systems, and have been practised for thousands of years. Our study strongly suggests that we can develop highly productive organic farming methods if we mimic nature by creating ecologically diverse farms that draw strength from natural interactions between species.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67105/original/image-20141212-6048-1la6e7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67105/original/image-20141212-6048-1la6e7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67105/original/image-20141212-6048-1la6e7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67105/original/image-20141212-6048-1la6e7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67105/original/image-20141212-6048-1la6e7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67105/original/image-20141212-6048-1la6e7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67105/original/image-20141212-6048-1la6e7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Organic farming could be the way forward.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Everett Kennedy Brown/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Crop rotation and polycultures are <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/504.full">known</a> to improve soil health and reduce pest pressure. Because these practices add diversity to the landscape they also support biodiversity, so they may improve yields while also protecting the environment.</p>
<p>We also found that for some crops such as oats, tomatoes and apples there were no differences in yield between organic and industrial farming at all. The largest yield gaps were found in two cereal crops, wheat and barley. However, since the agricultural <a href="http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib11.pdf">Green Revolution</a> in the mid-20th century, improving the yields of cereals grown using conventional, industrial agriculture has received a <a href="http://www.agdevjournal.com/volume-3-issue-4/380-closing-knowledge-gap-commentary.html?catid=141%3Aresearch-commentaries">huge</a> amount of research and funding – far more than organic agriculture. Little wonder, then, that we see a large difference in yields.</p>
<p>For example, some seeds are specifically bred to work well in the nutrient-rich, pest-free conditions found in conventional farms due to the heavy use of fertilisers and pesticides, so they may underperform in organic farms. But if we invested in organic agricultural research and development we’d no doubt see a large increase in the yield too.</p>
<p>We also found evidence that the yield gap estimate we and others have calculated is likely an overestimate. We found evidence of bias in the studies we compiled, which favoured the reporting of higher conventional yields relative to organic. This can arise for several reasons: the studies can favour specific crops or practices so that the results are unrepresentative, or introduce bias during the selection of results to be published. It’s impossible to know the origins of the bias, but it’s necessary to acknowledge the effect it will have on yield estimates.</p>
<h2>Won’t solve everything</h2>
<p>It’s important to remember that simply growing more food is not enough to address the twin crises of hunger and obesity. Current global food production already greatly exceeds what is needed to feed the world’s population, yet social, political, and economic factors prevent many people from living well-fed, healthy lives. A focus solely on increased yields will not solve the problem of world hunger. </p>
<p>To put the yield gap into context, the world’s <a href="http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/environment/global-food">food waste</a> alone is 30-40% of food production per year. If food waste were cut by half, this would more than compensate for the difference in yield from converting to organic agriculture, as well as greatly reducing the environmental impact of agriculture.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35320/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren C. Ponisio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The unintended consequences of our agricultural food system – polluted air and water, dead zones in coastal seas, soil erosion – have profound implications for human health and the environment. So more…Lauren C. Ponisio, Doctoral candidate in Conservation Biology, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/322272014-10-08T13:55:54Z2014-10-08T13:55:54ZBlessed are the wastrels, for their surplus could save the Earth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/61167/original/knz99r2v-1412771279.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Building resilience, one yacht at a time</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/eyesplash/">Eyesplash - let's feel the heat</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a world where too many go to bed hungry, it comes as a shock to realise that more than half the world’s <a href="http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/">food production is left to rot</a>, lost in transit, thrown out, or otherwise wasted. This loss is a humanitarian disaster. It’s a moral tragedy. It’s a blight on the conscience of the world.</p>
<p>It might ultimately be the salvation of the human species.</p>
<p>To understand why, consider that we live in a system that rewards efficiency. <a href="http://www.toyota-global.com/company/vision_philosophy/toyota_production_system/just-in-time.html">Just-in-time production</a>, reduced inventories, providing the required service at just the right time with minimised wasted effort: those are the routes to profit (and hence survival) for today’s corporations. This type of lean manufacturing aims to squeeze costs as much as possible, pruning anything extraneous from the process. That’s the ideal, anyway; and many companies are furiously chasing after this ideal.</p>
<p>Unfortunately there is often a trade-off between efficiency (producing the same goods at lowest cost) and resiliency (strength against unexpected crises). Protection against crises or disasters generally costs money. You need to maintain reserves and build up unused inventories. You need to develop contingency plans and train workers. You need excessively robust or excessively flexible manufacturing capabilities. You need a branch of your bureaucracy devoted to worst-case scenarios, with all the salaries and time that goes with that. And if you do all that – well, there are other companies out there, very willing to swoop in and take all your customers with their reduced costs. Resilient organisations go to the wall.</p>
<h2>Bleak swans</h2>
<p>Smaller, more regular disasters can be absorbed as a simple cost of doing business. But larger disasters, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/air-travel-disrupted-by-fresh-volcano-threats-in-iceland-and-papua-new-guinea-9700353.html">the large volcanic eruptions</a>, the super-plague (natural or engineered), the one-in-a-hundred-year events… Well, how many companies expect to be in business in a hundred years anyway? </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60176/original/5wcpcks3-1411731559.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lava flows: Under-represented in corporate planning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/41812768@N07/15146259395/in/photolist-bWXkjG-ouL8G5-9c3qZz-7V6gMf-7TM29h-62ZbSo-7Z6yMC-iVoYjS-7Z6yK1-a8vdZ2-99N1pk-srLJC-fDaDFQ-p5qxen-81AsVg-6Sg6sw-ayFz7W-9L7kY4-71zYM8-7TJ1xt-2S9TXc-p5RsUN-adi1y1-dQe33i-85suS7-cPqR5G-nkKZb8-4v1sEY-mZ54DP-a1etJj-9L7kXx-7n7es-9QWshP-9gs5hK-EeKbe-4DZxot-gFHYDG-6yrdq2-gWYXcU-7Pkt1v-otasPu-7TvXuH-aD3DP-8nfd3W-7iEykj-4M2iyH-9GraRL-feDVvo-hsxoy-hsxmG">peterhartree</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Thus, the very efficiency that has driven human production to its dizzying peaks, creates a brittleness and a fragility to crises or disasters that are slightly too large. And the whole system is connected: when one part starts being overwhelmed, when one category of ultra-specialised manufacturers go under, others that rely on it will start to suffer too. This could be followed by knock-on effects across the economy, hitting consumers and employees and spreading to other industries. A slightly-too-large disaster may bring down our interconnected economy just as effectively as a huge disaster would.</p>
<p>So it is important to preserve sources of resiliency where they exist. And the current waste in the world’s food system is such a source. It’s a tragedy that rich Westerners and aspiring rich Westerners eat wasteful meat and that <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/25/351495274/supermarkets-waste-tons-of-food-as-they-woo-shoppers">supermarkets</a> and individuals throw away so much food (indeed <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/10/food-waste-half-of-all-fo_n_2445022.html">half the food purchased in Europe and the US is thrown away</a> by consumers). But what that means is that there is a lot of slack in the system. If disaster struck, we could go back to eating more vegetables and carefully preserving excess foodstuffs. Even if half the world’s food production was wiped out by a super-plague, we’d still have enough to feed most of the people we feed today.</p>
<p>There are other inefficiencies in the world economy that translate into resiliency for our species. Of course, not all that is inefficient is resilient – some waste is just waste (for food, we could do a lot about <a href="http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-shaped-fruits-vegetables/">not throwing away imperfect vegetables</a>, but little about insect damage). What we are looking for is something that is wasteful, but could quickly be changed to be less wasteful if necessary. Perversely (and tragically), this could do more good for the human species that getting rid of all waste, which would improve the lives of more people, at the cost of making the whole system more brittle.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60172/original/7d9dg2j9-1411730329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60172/original/7d9dg2j9-1411730329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60172/original/7d9dg2j9-1411730329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60172/original/7d9dg2j9-1411730329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60172/original/7d9dg2j9-1411730329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60172/original/7d9dg2j9-1411730329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60172/original/7d9dg2j9-1411730329.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The saviour, or savour, of humanity?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonhildrew/243818529/in/photolist-nxCKK-9nWvEU-o8jHsv-4pA5h5-oyazvz-9532fy-952UJy-94YUfH-952Wqq-9533AA-952VnA-94Zspa-6aTTVW-bJZLtR-8ufoQh-bzHwwh-pm76g-953uNU-94Zr3D-eb291j-6Vszjt-eTywix">Simon Hildrew</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Good candidates for resilient inefficiencies are luxury goods. Spending on strict personal luxuries (jewelry, perfume, expensive cars, etc…) represents <a href="http://www.statista.com/topics/1110/global-luxury-goods-industry">more than half a trillion dollars per year</a>; but less blatantly excessive “luxuries” also abound. <a href="http://www.soilassociation.org/marketreport">Organic farms are an example</a>: they use their inputs (land, grain, animals) to produce food at higher cost and lower quantity than conventional farming. The advantages of organic food appeal to richer, western consumers. But if the situation were desperate, organic farms could be retooled for mass production of lower-quality but still edible foods. The same goes for factories making super-plasma, hyper-surround cinema-experience televisions (<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178034/Hammacher-Schlemmers-outrageous-luxury-toys-global-super-rich.html">or similar toys for the wealthy</a>). This rich demand maintains a manufacturing base for extreme luxury products, but one that could be repurposed for mass production of less extravagant but more useful products if needed.</p>
<p>There are many other examples of inefficient resilience. Transport systems are another example: in many countries, there are multiple redundant ways of making the same trip, not all of them filled to maximum capacity. Democracy also qualifies: the great efforts political parties spend denigrating each other can be swiftly replaced with common purpose in case of, to give an extreme example, external attack. Government subsidies represent resources that could be redirected if really needed: the more wasteful they are, the easier this is. A standing army is an ultimate example: serving no efficient purpose at all, it yet makes the country much more resilient. In biology, the immune system and evolution itself are <a href="http://listonlab.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/inefficient-consequences-of-evolution.html">both robust and hideously inefficient</a>.</p>
<h2>Surplus requirements</h2>
<p>It might seem perverse to promote inefficiency in the name of resiliency. And it is perverse. It would be much more effective to make production as efficient as possible, while some organisations – most likely governments – built up a surplus of goods and capabilities that could be used in case of disaster.</p>
<p>But such carefully planned resiliency might not – if you will pardon the phrasing – be very resilient. The accumulated surplus has no-one to speak for it, no constituency defending it, no faction profiting from it. In times of plenty, it would seem to be – and indeed it would be – an unprofitable waste, and furthermore a clear and visible waste. A waste that could be transformed into value at the stroke of a politician’s pen. The same tension that exists between companies would exist between governments, each pressured to spend their surplus rather than accumulate it. On purely moral grounds, could anyone defend accumulating a surplus for a hypothetical future disaster while people starved today?</p>
<p>In contrast, resiliency through inefficiency is much more robust. It has natural constituencies: farm lobbies, healthy eaters, rich consumers looking for the latest novelty goods. It rests on traditional (or inefficient) ways of doing things, requiring no change or innovation. It does not require active policy interventions, or even acknowledgement of the issue. As long as it is left alone, it will always be there, a reserve of resiliency ready to be tapped. As below, so above: the most inefficient way of producing resiliency is also the most… resilient.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32227/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Armstrong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a world where too many go to bed hungry, it comes as a shock to realise that more than half the world’s food production is left to rot, lost in transit, thrown out, or otherwise wasted. This loss is…Stuart Armstrong, James Martin Research Fellow, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.