The recent announcement that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have donated close to $10 million to research what has been termed as “fertilizer free” grain crops, whilst applaudable on the surface, only serves to distract us from the real solution to global hunger- Agroecological (or natural farming) systems at the local level.
But first, let’s consider the concept of “fertilizer free” food. What is actually being referred to here is the concept of transferring the genes responsible for nitrogen fixation from legume plants into grain crops such as wheat and rice. In theory this sounds great. The application of nitrogen fertilizers is one of the most unsustainable and damaging practices in agriculture; if all plants produced their own nitrogen life would be much easier.
The reality, unfortunately, is not quite that simple. The scientists receiving this grant have themselves admitted that this research will not yield any results for at least 10 years. Other research into this area suggests it may require 20 years. But given the evidence that exists from GM research over the past 20 years one really must question whether or not genetically engineering multi gene traits such as those relating to nitrogen fixation is even possible at all.
And this is reflective of the marketing of genetically engineered crops more broadly. We are continually provided with feel good statements from the biotechnology lobby suggesting that GM crops will provide the solution to feeding the world. In reality however, after 20 odd years of research into this area very few of these promises have been proven true and most GM crops are still single gene crops.
Why then is the biotechnology lobby so intent on promoting GM crops? For one simple reason- GM technology provides GM companies with the opportunity to own patents over the crops, patents over nature. With GM technology, seed companies have the ability to make more money than they ever have before. GM technology isn’t about feeding the world or improving farmers’ lives, at least not in Monsanto’s eyes. GM technology is about control of the global food system and anyone who tells you different is lying.
But the bigger question must be, do we even need GM?
Let’s look at this example specifically. The reality is that we already have legume food crops that can convert nitrogen from the air into a form that is useable by plants. By rotating leguminous crops with other crops such as grain crops we can dramatically reduce the need for nitrogenous fertilisers. This is agroecological or natural farming, it has been done for thousands of years, and it provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now.
After all, synthetic fertilizers were only developed in the 20th century, prior to this time farmers had to find natural sources of nutrient, from within their local environment, to replenish the nutrient that is exported with their crops. This is nothing new, we’ve just forgotten to farm in this way.
America’s own Rodale Institute has conducted and continues to conduct the world’s longest running trial comparing organic to conventional agriculture over the past 30 years. Over this period, even in volume terms alone, organic agriculture has proven to be more productive than conventional agriculture. But when the costs of inputs have been factored in, organic agriculture has been shown to be vastly more profitable.
Bill Gates seems to think that third world farmers are struggling because they don’t have the resources of their American counterparts. What he’s forgetting, is just how badly his well resourced US farmers are doing.
What’s more, he is continuing to ignore the advice of experts, who have been saying for years now that agroecological farming is the best way to feed not only the third world, but the entire world. This United Nations Report from 2010 estimated that small-scale farmers could double food production in critical regions, within 10 years, by using agroecological methods. It makes complete sense; we have gone into these third world countries and tried to teach them to farm using our methods. We have got them addicted to our technologies and, more importantly, to our fertilisers and chemicals. It just doesn’t work.
This old proverb sums it up for me- give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
By teaching poor third world farmers to farm using modern, fossil fuel intensive agricultural methods using genetically engineered seeds the rights for which are controlled under patents by multinational corporations, we are keeping farmers on the teat of western corporate control. But by teaching farmers to grow food using agroecological methods using inputs that occur naturally around them we are providing these people with the skills they need to not only to survive, but to flourish; independent of foreign aid.
Teaching these skills does not come cheap however. If Mr Gates is serious about feeding the world’s poor and helping us establish sustainable farming practices that will heal the environment and provide a future for humanity, he needs to look less towards GM and more towards nature.
Like the site.
The article tells it like it is. I am heartily sick of so called hero benefactors who claim to want to save the planet that actually turn out to be nothing more than profiteering scavengers who’s endeavours for the the planet are merely a means to an end, the end being loads of money in their bank and a secure future money spinner for them too. Meanwhile the initial problem(s) that they claimed to want to resolve are simply glossed over.
I wish the people with the means would stop trying to invent the human race out of trouble and stop also trying to re-invent the wheel.
Simple solutions such as permaculture and organic agriculture would solve a load of issues in one year alone.
Looking forward to reading more as time goes on.
Kev C
Thanks for the comment Kev. Sounds like you’ll be interested (if you’re Australian?) in the work being done by the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance. Here are there comments on the National Food Plan- http://theconversation.edu.au/the-draft-national-food-plan-putting-corporate-hunger-first-8342
We need to get behind this group in their objective to develop a “peoples food plan”
Thanks for the insightful article. Ever since I first learned about ‘terminator genes’, I’ve become quite concerned with the future of the world’s food supply, and rank this issue with my ‘fear’ of nuclear radiation (I live in Tokyo). I want to move toward sustainability, and I need to convince my wife that this is the right move. Of course, there is a wealth of information available; in fact that’s part of the problem. What I have not seen (yet) is a simple primer and/or checklist as to why this matters, basically addressing people who are inclined to see the need, or who haven’t really thought about, but might be inclined if they had the correct data.
Have you written on this, or do you know someone how has?
I am currently working in International Development in Rome with the CGIAR centers and working closing with the UN based food agencies here. It’s interesting to note that the Gates foundation is funding a ridiculous number of projects and programs in these organisations, stemming from biotech investment research to more “small scale” projects.
During Gate’s key-note speech at IFAD earlier this year, he plugged the importance of investment in technology as the only way to move towards a world free from hunger. You can find the transcript here [ http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-commentary/pages/bill-gates-2012-ifad.aspx ].
Let’s not forget that Gates purchased 500,000 shares in Monsanto in 2010.
So lets be realistic, The gates foundation, and “Mr Gates”, is never going to invest in agro-ecology and true empowerment of poor rural small holder farmers. So how do we move forward, in the current development framework, when his money is what is funding the development world?
Thanks for your comment Jessica. Since writing this piece a couple of people have pointed out the fact that Gates invested heavily in Monsanto, according to this Guardian piece it was close to $23 million worth of shares- http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto
I try to remain an optimist and believe that people like this are simply being misled by poor advice. Unfortunately, you’d have to be pretty naive to truly believe that’s the case…
I’d like to ask… who’s giving the advice?
Latest Gates move to ‘save the world’. Gas masks any one?…
“Gates and Co. believes it has no choice but to “save the planet” by polluting it with sulfate particles.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036583_geoengineering_Bill_Gates_global_warming.html#ixzz21fn2SqdE
……………………..’This is agroecological or natural farming — it has been done for thousands of years, and it provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now.’
Great, but …..The world’s population will swell from 7 to 9 billion in the next 50 years, during which time the human race will consume twice as much food as it has since the beginning of agriculture, 10,000 years ago (Nature, 2012). Are you sure we’re ready to go all out permaculture? Are you SURE we can handle it? If yes, then I say go for it. If you’re not absolutely sure though, perhaps, just maybe we should hedge our bets a bit. That is unless you think that widespread starvation is acceptable collateral damage for the greater good of going all out agroecological. Now.
But let’s say we do as you say. Right, natural, agroecological, permaculture farming’s the go. After all, ‘It provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now.’ Great, over to you. The lives of billions of people are in your hands. Go for it. You don’t have much time. We’re waiting and we’re getting hungry. Provide nutrition for 7 billion people, as you say, NOW. Go. Its been done for thousands of years, as you say, so surely you’re ready, the solutions have been known for thousands of years, as you say. Go. It’s up to you. We the billions put our lives in your hands. You told us you could do it. You told us you’ve been doing it for thousands of years after all. Go. Show us how you upscale your system to provide nutrition for 7-9 billion people. Now. Show us how you upscale to provide twice as much food in the next 30 years as has ever been produced by humanity. Go. We’re waiting. I’m getting hungry.
Or…..maybe it’s a good system, but maybe, just maybe we should just maybe hedge our bets a little, for a while at least. Maybe, like replacing fossil fuels we should use modern human ingenuity and good will to think about interim solutions. But…..then again, you did say that it has been done for thousands of years, and it provides real solutions for feeding the world. Now. So……….maybe I should trust you. I am getting hungry though. You know what? I’m thinking maybe we shouldn’t reject human ingenuity out of hand, reject things we don’t understand or that have been suggested by people we’d like to think could be suspect. Maybe we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket. A bit of solar, a bit of wind, a bit of wave power, some geothermal. That sounds better to me. I’m sure it was modern thinkers that came up with those good ideas. You know, I think you’re being too cocky telling us that you can ‘provide the real solutions for feeding the world. Now.’ I’m all for permaculture. Some of my most precious ideals were formed sitting beside Bill Mollison. To me, you’re hubris is making a mockery of your undoubted sincerity. Your certainty smacks of pre-enlightenment thinking and of a certain Cambodian’s dream of an agrarian paradise. Real solutions are to be found in a variety of interlocking and interwoven paths. All the answers don’t lie in the past. To reject the ingenuity of modern people and ideas and their potential out of hand, to say we’ve had the answers for thousands of years is following the same narrow, blinded thinking that led us into this mess. We can be better than that. Like it or not, we, as enlightened permaculturists, have a responsibility to be better than that. We also need to reject hubris out of hand.
Hello Brian, so this is the thanks I get for coming in to speak to your class is it? Well thanks a LOT
With all due respect, I think it is you who is being naive here. The entire premise of this article comes for this UN Report- http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/press_releases/20110308_agroecology-report-pr_en.pdf which suggests- “To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available,”… “Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live — especially in unfavorable environments.”
As we discussed, and I’m pretty sure you agreed, I think it is in poorer, third world countries where agroecological farming has the most to offer. My intention with this article, is not so much to write off the potential of science as it is to highlight that there are better solutions that philanthropists like Gates could be backing, before investing in pie in the sky solutions like leguminous wheat. We already have legume food crops. How about we teach these farmers how to include them more effectively in their rotations – and how about we start today?
The last thing I’m suggesting is that we, as you say, “put all our eggs in one basket”. But do you honestly believe this is the risk? As I mentioned to your class yesterday, investment in organic research in Australia in 2002-3 was 0.0004% of the investment in agricultural/environmental research. That figure represents an estimated 40% of the levies paid by organic farmers!!! Come on mate, I know you are a researcher in the GM space, but do you honestly believe that we couldn’t contribute more towards researching these type of solutions?
One of the biggest problems we face is that there is so little public investment in research. Almost all research is conducted in collaboration with private companies thinking only of their bottom line. The result is that we get this ridiculous situation where there is no investment in organic or natural solutions because there are no associated products to sell.
Without wanting to make this overly personal, this line particularly offends me- “To me, you’re hubris is making a mockery of your undoubted sincerity. Your certainty smacks of pre-enlightenment thinking and of a certain Cambodian’s dream of an agrarian paradise.”
There is only thing I’m certain about and that’s that things need to change. Comparing me to Pol Pot? Really? I’m sorry Brian but this is not only ridiculous, it’s ridiculously offensive. Never have I suggested that all the answers lie in the past. Never have I suggested that I have all the answers. Do you honestly believe there is a risk that we’re going to go from where we are now to some permaculture based reality? Sorry mate but you’ve been locked up in the lab too long.
Hi Richard. Absolutely no offence meant. Just being provocative in order to provoke conversation. The last thing we need is each in his/her own corner preaching to the converted, slapping each other on the backl. The Cambodian reference was probably out of line, but it most certainly wasn’t directed at you, rather as a reminder of the dangers of ‘religious’ extremism. A bit severe. My sincere apologies. I do feel though that there can be some pretty extreme quasi-religious self reverential types on both sides of the fence. And that I equate with closed minds. I’ve met you and listened to your points of view and seen your commitment and you’re clearly far from extreme. As I’ve said, I hold you in great stead. I didn’t in fact realise that you wrote the piece. I thought you’d just re-posted it and posted my comments, as I said, to provoke broader discussion, not to offend. Cheers. Brian
Fair enough Brian, I started this blog for that exact purpose – to promote discussion. I don’t claim to have the answers and I don’t know what the future looks like, I just hope it’s different to this; if not, I think we’re in serious trouble.
The Pol Pot comment got under my skin, I have been to Cambodia and witnessed first hand the atrocities that his regime committed. I may be idealistic in some of my views but I’m also a realist, I think the risks of locking ourselves into degradative industrial production methods outweigh the risks associated with moving towards more sustainable techniques. But I agree, we must approach this discussion with open eyes and a willingness to listen.
As I have said to you, the single biggest concern I have with GM technology is in relation ability to patent genes. Monopolisation of the food supply, in my mind, does not serve anyone’s interests – least of all farmers. Until this situation is addressed I cannot support the use of this technology. I know you share these concerns on some level.
But I’m always willing to engage in constructive dialogue and welcome further debate with you on this and other issues. I’m also heartened that you are prepared to seek external input and encourage debate within your classes. There is far too little of this in my view and I hope more lecturers follow your example.
Cheers,
Rich