Organic farming is the "only way to produce food" without harming the planet and people's health

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/23-4



***SNIP

The case against industrial agriculture

Productivity in industrial agriculture is measured in terms of "yield" per acre, not overall output. And the only input taken into account is labor, which is abundant, not natural resources which are scarce.

A resource hungry and resource destructive system of agriculture is not land saving, it is land demanding. That is why industrial agriculture is driving a massive planetary land grab. It is leading to the deforestation of the rainforests in the Amazon for soya and in Indonesia for palm oil. And it is fueling a land grab in Africa, displacing pastoralists and peasants.

According to the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig (1995), industrial agriculture is responsible for 75 per cent biodiversity erosion, 75 per cent water destruction, 75 per cent land degradation and 40 per cent greenhouse gases. It is too heavy a burden on the planet. And as the 270,000 farmers' suicides since 1997 in India show, it is too heavy a burden on our farmers.

The toxics and poisons used in chemical farming are creating a health burden for our society. Remember Bhopal. Remember the Endosulfan victims in Kerala. And remember Punjab's Cancer train.

[veganlush]

1. and

A vegan diet is the single biggest action the average person can take to help their health, the planet and the animals.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

4. Short term, maybe

But long-term, it's not good for a person's health. I've known 5 former vegans who were all told by their doctors to start eating meat (one was vegan for 10 years, and she knew how to control her diet) because they were all anemic. Some of them stick to one type of meat, as one former vegan eats just chicken and the other just eats fish (and he was a very obese vegan, he immediately started shedding the pounds once he started eating meat again).

I think it's a good diet for the short-term, and I AM eating less meat (I'm actually borderline vegetarian) but it's not good for the long-term.

[kestrel91316]

6. Humans didn't evolve as vegans. We evolved as omnivores.

Animals and animal products have always been part of our diet. Responsible use of animals and moderate consumption is the key.

Doesn't mean we need steak every night or even every week, but I'm sure you get my point.

[PDJane]

2. Dr. Shiva is quite right.

I grew up on what would now be called an organic farm. Free range chickens, free range cows, small market gardens....and wild berries, crabapples, leeks, etc.

Now I live in the city; milk tastes different; it's sweeter. Apples don't taste the same, especially mackintosh, which don't travel well. Berries are larger, and tasteless.

Moreover, factory farming mistreats animals; they are not allowed to live out their lives in the way that they should. It's cruel, it's energy intensive, and we will run out of things like potassium. We are living past the limits of the planet, and that's neither healthy nor sustainable.

[mopinko]

5. i am shocked at the difference in taste

of the food i am growing on my little urban farm. small scale farms on abandoned land is a trend that we ought to be supporting.
i am not exactly 'organic', i think it is sort of a meaningless concept in a place where arsenic falls from the sky. but i do my best, and most of my year one work is building soil from wood and organic matter. my watch word is 'sustainable'.

[mother earth]

3. TY, xchrom...GM = disease & death. Monsanto is evil, plain & simple.

K & R!

[Gregorian]

7. But they don't mention the underlying problem.

Most of these kinds of articles miss the blindingly obvious problem that has lead to our present situation. For example, a million cars on the planet isn't a problem, per se. A billion cars has lead to the massive meltdown we're presently observing.

It's the numbers. It's how many mouths there are. The rest is just solving the symptoms, not the root problem.

[GliderGuider]

9. As with so many things, the dose makes the poison.

This principle applies as much to human numbers as it does to arsenic or salt.

Everything we see as a problem today is really a symptom. Fixing the symptoms simply permits the disease to progress further.

[AverageJoe90]

10. I'm afraid I can't quite agree.

Overpopulation is definitely a major problem in some areas, but I'm afraid that going back down to 1 billion or so people won't solve anything(And in fact, might actually make Exxon, etc. even bolder), and getting rid of 99.99% of the world's cars isn't feasible, either; in fact, they're not at all the biggest polluters!

Many articles are indeed blindingly oblivious to the whole story; but as far as our side is concerned, it's the Guy MacPhersons and many population reduction advocates who seem to suffer the biggest issues, the former with hand-wringing & grandiose Armageddon scenarios that simply couldn't happen because of how Nature works, and the latter with rosy-eyed optimism that if we could just have fewer people, everything would be just fine and dandy.

[Gregorian]

11. If you say so.

[CRH]

12. Hi AJ90, 'reduction advocates' are not trying to be mean, ...

or insensitive to the brutality of a die off in population.

It is in the numbers. Even with the use of a stored carbon sink providing fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, mechanization, and transportation, in a global agricultural system, still one third of the world's population suffers from malnutrition, of varying degrees.

Now the world is faced with not using those hydrocarbons. It matters little if it is a depletion of the hydrocarbons or the pollution of their use that destroys our environment, the fact is until such time as the GHG problems are solved and a new sustainable energy is developed, the present population is not sustainable.

The carrying capacity of the planet using the sustainable primary budget of energy and resources has been well researched. To be honest, there are different levels of a sustainable carrying capacity thought to be possible. Most fall within the range of one and two billion humans. The ones I have read about, vary from the supposed levels of technology to be employed in the future, and the degree in sustainable interaction within the ecosystems that make up the environment as a whole.

It is not an evil wish or design reductionists want to cast upon humanity, it is that the present numbers without solutions to energy, water, and pollution are not sustainable.

I agree a great reduction in population does not in any way guarantee survival, or even a better way of living. Especially if the reduction is forced and chaotic, through a breakdown in civilization. It is sad there will probably be little choice if the reduction is forced through famine, climate upheaval, or massive socio-economic failure. For the a reduction to have any beneficial effect would take some form of organization and management. Through politics, doubtful, through consciousness doubtful, through religion doubtful, through feudalism supported by private armies more realistic. Perhaps the most efficient system to incorporate past knowledge with resources and find a harmonious balance with the injured planet would be a benevolent dictator, but that is the stuff fairy tales are made of.

So, I can agree with you that those that suggest a die off would be beneficial, are equally naive as those who suggest the status quo is sustainable, with future technology not yet invented. If a reduction happens and it is chaotic, it won't be pretty and one might not be lucky to survive. It might very well be; man against man, man against nature, man against his moral belief in a constant struggle to reach tomorrow. Whatever form a reductionist future is likely to take, it is hardly a future anyone would prefer, over a peaceful and thoughtful evolution though the crisis.

[AverageJoe90]

14. Oh no, I didn't mean that, CRH.

I do realize that most are well-meaning folks, so sorry about any confusion.

And I do agree that our current way of life is not sustainable in the long-term and has to be drastically changed. Otherwise, many millions probablywill die as a direct result. And nobody wants that.

Again, my apologies for any misunderstandings.

[CRH]

15. Not a problem, sometimes what we write, ...

or perceive others wrote is confused with intent and connotation. It has happened to us all, and we can only hope the confusion that leads to ruffled feathers, are smoothed in future flights.

Peace, hrh.

[XemaSab]

8. I'm not opposed to all use of fertilizers and targeted pesticides

but that action needs to be dialed way, way, way back.

[Odin2005]

13. It's cheaper to just dump fertilizer and pesticides indiscriminately...

rather than targeting small amounts in the right places because pesticides and fertilizer are cheap relative to manpower. Also, farm labor is a low pay, low prestige job associated with migrant and illegal immigrant laborers, and reversing that would mean increasing the pay for the job by a lot, which would make manpower even more expensive. That is the problem, IMO.

Additionally, the people who tend to own agribusinesses tend to be very conservative in temperament and unwilling to change the way things are done.