Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

How Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World
Witnessing a Shift in the Worldview of Agriculture
http://www.counterpunch.org/gray03102010.html
March 10, 2010 By HEATHER GRAY and K. RASHID NURI

Recent research indicates that organic farming can feed the world, and is 
actually making a significant difference everywhere. In the United States and 
Europe, universities are reporting that organically produced food will 
address the problems of hunger and poverty facing the world’s growing 
population. This is not a surprising finding for organic farmers and 
advocates of organic agricultural production. The American worldview of 
agriculture is, in fact, making a radical shift.

In 1990 sociologists Curtis Beus and Riley Dunlap wrote a fascinating 
description of paradigms in agriculture in an article entitled “Conventional 
versus Alternative Agriculture: The Paradigmatic Roots of the Debate”. The 
authors define conventional agriculture in the 20th century as: 
"Capital-intensive, large-scale, highly mechanized agriculture with 
monocultures of crops and extensive use of artificial fertilizers, herbicides 
and pesticides, with intensive animal husbandry". They go on to say that the 
“discussion of conven tional agriculture as presented in this paper will 
include the agri business suppliers of farm inputs and the marketers of farm 
output. This is done because of the integral interdependence between the 
production sector and the supply and marketing sectors of modern 
agribusiness”. It is often referred to as industrial agriculture.

In describing dominant worldviews, reference has to be made to physicist 
Thomas Kuhn. In 1970 his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Kuhn 
describes how science inquiry changes overtime. When change is eminent he 
says that those holding the dominant worldview in science will cling to and 
fight for their dominant position. Kuhn’s analysis has subsequently been 
adapted to understanding changes in worldviews whether in science or in 
society overall. In agriculture, the struggle of conventional versus 
alternative worldviews is right out of Kuhn and the differences have been so 
acute that even discourse between the various parties has often been 
impossible.

In general, the American dominant social paradigm, the authors say, is 
described as the “most fundamental and pervasive worldview”. It is a “belief 
in progress, growth and prosperity, faith in science and technology, 
commitment to a laissez faire economy and private property rights, and a view 
of nature as something that must be subdued and made useful”. All of the 
above concepts became part of the paradigm of corporate/conventional 
agriculture described above. It has also been aligned with corporate America, 
Congress, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the 
executive branch. All of them have had controlling factions that have held 
this view and as a result the subsequent farm policies have been devastating 
in the United States and around the world.

As a result of these conventional practices we’ve witnessed the loss of 
family farmers throughout the world, degradation of topsoil, pollution of 
water tables and fresh water generally and ocean dead zones from chemical 
pollution and run-offs, lack of important diversity in agriculture and 
intense mono-crop production, less nutritious food, loss of family farmers 
and rural jobs, poorer health of consumers due to ingestion of chemicals in 
food, in the water and in the air. The list goes on and on.

In the 1970’s the environmental movement took hold with a new paradigm that 
challenged the dominant paradigm of conventional agriculture above. Rachel 
Carson’s influential “Silent Spring” (1963), for one, described the 
devastation of chemicals and huge agriculture ventures. Her critique began to 
take hold on the American psyche that set the stage for an intense battle of 
views in agriculture circles. The core values of the new movement challenged 
the prevailing views of “economic growth and domination of nature, the free 
market economy, hierarchical political structure, centralized social 
organization, large scale technological development, and the legitimacy of 
scientific knowledge as the basis for social decision making” (Beus and 
Dunlap). From this an alternative view of agriculture began to take shape.

Beus and Dunlap define alternative agriculture as follows:“At the heart of 
any definition of alternative agriculture is an em phasis on organic or 
near-organic practices. Essentially, all alternative agriculturalists favor 
significantly reduced use of synthetic farm chem icals. Most alternative 
agriculturalists, however, see their goals as much broader than merely 
reducing agricultural chemical use. Ad ditionally, alternative 
agriculturalists advocate smaller farm units and technology, reduced energy 
use, greater farm and regional self-suf ficiency, minimally processed 
foodstuffs, conservation of finite re sources, and more direct sales to 
consumers. This is not an exhaustive list, nor does it completely define 
alternative agriculture, but it does illustrate some of the fundamental 
differences between alternative and conventional agriculture.”

After reviewing the writings and actions of leading proponents of 
conventional agriculture and alternative agriculture, Beus and Dunlap 
identify six “dimensions” of the competing paradigms and they are: “1) 
centralization vs. decentralization, 2) dependence vs. independence, 3) 
competition vs. community, 4) dom ination of nature vs. harmony with nature, 
5) specialization vs. diversity, and 6) exploitation vs. restraint.”

One of the prevailing views not referred to by Beus and Dunlap, however, is 
the belief among proponents of industrial agriculture that the world needs 
industrial agriculture if the world’s poor and hungry are to be fed. In fact, 
former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz under the Nixon administration once 
said, "We can go back to organic agriculture in this country if we must.... 
However, before we move in that direction, someone must decide which 50 
million of our people will starve" (Beus and Dunlap).

The paradox is that there is already enough food to feed the world but people 
are still hungry – why is this? One of the many reasons for this is poverty, 
and industrial agriculture might be the culprit here as well as it focuses on 
quantity and is known to exacerbate poverty. Antithetical to 
industrial/conventional agriculture is locally owned sustainable food 
production, job creation and an independent farming sector which are some of 
the hallmarks of the alternative agriculture model.

Conventional and alternative models of agriculture have been addressed in the 
debates and in competing farm policies in America and around the world. In 
fact, in 2006 and in 2007 the United Nations Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) met in Rome to discuss international food security and the 
paradoxes of industrial versus organic production and the findings were 
striking. The findings? The FAO stated “States should integrate organic 
agriculture objectives within national priorities”.

With the world’s population to reach 9 billion by 2050 the FAO has been 
trying look at how best to feed the world in an environmentally sound and 
sustainable way.

The FAO reported that while it dominates in the world’s food production 
"industrialized food systems have environmental and social costs that 
threaten food security, e.g., occupational deaths through pesticide 
poisoning, farmers' suicides due to debts, and loss of millions of jobs in 
rural areas." The FAO also expressed concern about the impact of industrial 
agriculture on vulnerable populations, the environment and climate change 
issues.

So what’s best for our communities? The FAO reported that organic production 
is one of the best routes toward food sovereignty. Through rural development 
and rural revitalization locally owned and controlled organically focused 
production creates jobs, is environmentally sound, has a fairer trade system, 
has fairer wages, it’s locally based emphasis helps people have more control 
over their own local resources, and is non-exploitive generally. Some of the 
other benefits of organic production are that because no chemicals are used 
there is more water security and less erosion as organic production 
prioritizes healthy and alive soil that helps to retain water. Importantly, 
organic production also helps to maintain plant diversity for generations to 
come.

In addition to all of the above, organically produced food can also produce 
enough food for the world!

In a 2007 report from the University of Michigan, it states, “Organic farming 
can feed the world”. The University researched the differences in performance 
between conventional and organically produced food. The press release begins 
by stating: “Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on 
individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the 
same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that 
organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global 
population.”

Ivette Perfecto, professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural 
Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators said 
"the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were 
almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food 
production could double or triple using organic methods.” She said further 
“the idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is 
‘ridiculous’”.

The press release stated further that: "We were struck by how much food the 
organic farmers would produce," Perfecto said. The researchers set about 
compiling data from published literature to investigate the two chief 
objections to organic farming: low yields and lack of organically acceptable 
nitrogen sources.

Their findings refute those key arguments, Perfecto said, and confirm that 
organic farming is less environmentally harmful yet can potentially produce 
more than enough food. This is especially good news for developing countries, 
where it’s sometimes impossible to deliver food from outside, so farmers must 
supply their own. Yields in developing countries could increase dramatically 
by switching to organic farming, Perfecto said.”

Other research in Europe and others in the United States have concurred with 
the University of Michigan findings. (See the Worldwatch Institute’s “Can 
Organic Farming Feed Us All?”).

Moving toward organic and sustainable agriculture production throughout the 
world is not really an alternative but is, in fact, a necessity for us all. 
All the data is now in place showing that there has been a shift toward a 
natural, organic and sustainable agriculture model in communities throughout 
the world, including here in the United States, which is also being 
implemented. It needs to continue. The dominant worldview in agriculture is 
also changing and what has been referred to as alternative is now becoming 
the dominant view in most countries. We are also witnessing this worldview 
shift in agriculture circles here in the United States. On the implementation 
side, organic production needs to replace industrial/conventional practices 
everywhere. Let’s do it.

Heather Gray is the producer of "Just Peace" on WRFG-Atlanta 89.3 FM covering 
local, regional, national and international news. She has been involved in 
agriculture advocacy and communications for 20 years in the United States and 
internationally. She lives in Atlanta, Georgia and can be reached at 
hmcgray@earthlink.net

K. Rashid Nuri is an organic urban farmer and agricultural educator in 
Atlanta, Georgia. He brings forty years of experience to this work. Rashid 
has lived and worked in over 30 countries around the world. He has managed 
public, private and community-based food and agriculture businesses. Rashid 
served four years as a Senior USDA Executive in the Clinton administration. 
He is a graduate of Harvard College, where he studied Political Science, and 
has a M.S. in Plant and Soil Science from the University of Massachusetts. He 
can be reached at admin@trulylivingwell.com. His website is 
http://www.trulylivingwell.com/