But have you had ever noticed any similarities between these “ways” and those of marketing representatives of any company (national or transnational)? While appreciating the tremendous role extension agents have played, my honest conscience makes me perceive extension system evolving as a marketing arm of established brands (be it of fertilizer, or pesticide, or seed) rather than trying to make farmers innovative, self-reliant and looking for “sovereign” sustainable solutions.
Another important feature that has become conspicuous globally is the integration of food supply chain and its concentration in the hands of a very few multinational and transnational companies. With this integration, farming has largely been remotely controlled and the use of chemicals, hybrid seeds and genetically engineered (hi-tech) agriculture have been portrayed as the “modern” agriculture. People are forced to believe that agriculture without chemicals and hybrid seed is obsolete and not possible at all. This belief has been more pronounced particularly after the so-called “green revolution”. No matter what the consequences are, the focus of modern agriculture is to raise production by any means. With commodity fetishism dictating production, people now fail to recognize that agriculture is not only a means to increase production but also a way of life, where people relate themselves to and interact with nature and society.
With commodity fetishism dictating production, people now fail to recognize that agriculture is not only a means to increase production but also a way of life, where people relate themselves to and interact with nature and society.
Today when sustainability has been a centerpiece of debate and discourse, there is a unanimous voice that the chemical laden and so-called “mainstream agriculture” is not at all sustainable. Excessive reliance on fossil fuels, impact on human and environmental health, loss of biodiversity and corporate dependence are few of the immediate repercussions of the new agriculture. Even if every conscious citizen today is aware of such negative externalities associated with chemical reliant agriculture, why are governments hesitant to promote alternatives that are available and viable, for example organic? This might to some extent be related to the power and influence that the multinationals exert on the governments to run their businesses.
One of the oft-cited reasons for governments’ reluctance to go for alternatives like organic is the concern for food security. There is a general belief that organic agriculture doesn’t produce as much food required to feed the hungry. Though this might appear quite convincing at first, this claim often fails to take into account the essence of food security as such. Food security is often equated with increasing the production. On the other hand, whatever the scope of the definition, the food security notion appears to be quite parochial. Parochial for, how long do we expect this chemical laden agriculture to increase agricultural production? This is crucial because there are a number of reported incidences where pests have started showing resistance to pesticides and soil is almost irresponsive to higher fertilizer dosage.
Another reason behind governments’ reluctance to promote organic agriculture is related to market. There is a general belief that organic commodities have smaller market, are expensive and are meant only for rich people. But looking at the consumer awareness and preference trends, the niche market notion also appears to be quite bleak. With consumer awareness increasing globally and governments attaching higher value to human and environmental health, it is for sure that organic would no longer be an option; it would rather be a binding production mode if you are to compete in the global market. Current market trends also support this. Available data indicate that sale of organic food and beverage is increasing by 5 billion US dollar every year globally. In 2004, global sales of organic food and beverages were recorded at 27.8 billion US dollar, which rose to 46 billion US dollar in 2007. During 2010- 12, it is estimated to increase by 60-70 billion US dollars.
At the time when concern for climate change has heightened, the contribution of conventional agriculture for the climate change, its carbon foot print and the role that organic agriculture can play in climate change mitigation has not received attention as it deserves. The fact that agriculture is not only affected by but also contributes to climate change has gone largely unnoticed. The fact that mainstream agriculture not only has human health impacts but is also environmentally unsustainable has been well established. Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data indicate that agriculture sector alone contributed 10- 13 percent to green house gas emission in 2005, which is equivalent to emitting 5.1 to 6.1 gigatons of C02. If this production mode continues, it is expected that agriculture sector would contribute more than 8.3 gigatons CO2 equivalent per year in 2030. Agriculture is the main emitter of nitrous oxide and methane, the major culprits for raising the earth’s temperature.
Besides these immediate and visible impacts there are several other hidden consequences that the mainstream agriculture can produce. Rachel Carson in “Silent Spring” has very correctly captured this dilemma. Similarly, the Bhopal gas tragedy is yet another tragic consequence that the quest for so-called modern agriculture can breed. What is intended to say here is that there are of course alternatives available that can not only feed the billions of hungry mouths but at the same time can contribute to making this world a better place to live- another better and healthier world is possible! But this requires not only a radical shift in our way of thinking and approaching to problems but also a commitment and readiness from the governments that largely shapes our behavior.
dmkandel@yahoo.com
Related story
Collagen supplements for skin- hoax or worth the hype?
