Shayne Murphy, in your letter to the editor in the 02 Dec issue, you ask the question: “. . . what other alternatives (to GMO seed development) are being offered to satisfy the increased demand for viable food crops?” I hope I can encourage you and your classmates to look into the alternatives as part of your diploma in agriculture studies.
As
I was growing up my father and the farmers around us were being courted by the
post WWII agro-chemical companies. There was much excitement about how
technological advancements were revolutionizing agriculture and about how these
advancements would improve rural life. Although my parents wouldn’t complain,
their mid-sized (for its day) conventional farm failed to support them. My
mother had to find off-farm work, then my father did as well and there wasn’t
enough income to offer me a place to learn and take over the farm. Our
community has since lost half of its population. Yes, our production has
increased but our ability to sustain ourselves has decreased.
About
that same time it became clear that the farmers who kept up with the old ways
of feeding the soil with compost, keeping their incomes diversified, keep growing
as much of their own food as possible and who were learning new techniques like
crop rotations and green manure plow downs, were able to hold on to their
farms. These farmers began to band together to form organic certifying bodies.
There was demand for the synthetic-chemical free food they were growing and
they needed to standardize their growing and labeling methods. Earlier this
year Newsweek reported on a 19 year Farming Systems Trial conducted by Rodale
Institute and the US Department of Agriculture contrasting a highly productive
corn/soybean system under conventional as well as organic management. They
demonstrated that organic practices are as efficient, cost-effective and
financially competitive as are conventional approaches – plus better for the
soil and the environment.
Organic
farmers cannot use GM seeds, they don’t enjoy support from very many research
facilities or governments and still they find solutions to agronomic
challenges. There is beauty in this, in particular because they are being
rewarded now by a market that is clearly the leader in food sales. Wise farmers
and researchers are perking up their ears when they hear that for the past 15
years organic markets in North America and
Another
system that includes organic farmers but is open to all is the Holistic
Management method. They are also concerned about the long term health of the
soil and the sustainability of the family farm. The added benefit of HM is that
the farmers associated to it get together socially and to help each other make
decisions; to keep from getting distracted by influences that are not rural,
community based. The nearest HM teachers are Don and Bev
Campbell in
www.holisticmanagement.org
Please
do not get too attached to the argument that we need to feed a hungry world.
First of all there is plenty of food to feed everyone. Our problems are 1.
ensuring everyone can grow and get compensated adequately for growing food that
is needed by the people nearest to them and 2. getting
temporary food to people when they can’t produce what they need locally. Our
governments, transportation interests and agro-corporations have over the years
separated the consumer interests from the grower interests. What we need to do
more diligently is reconnect these two primary players in the food system. We
have people all over the world growing food they can’t eat, exporting to people
who are also growing food they don’t eat. Yes, it’s great to eat food from
other areas of the world, but if the cost to us is poor nutrition and rural
economies falling through the floor, perhaps we should look a bit more
critically for solutions before we once again tie ourselves to an
agro-corporate, global-transportation-of-goods agenda.
If
we decide that we don’t have enough food to feed the people on this earth, we
should first look for the places where we are most inefficient. We would soon
see that our grain-fed beef industry and our demand for coffee, tea, bananas,
sugar, etc. from poor countries could easily be reduced to free up land for the
food that is actually needed.
Let’s
not keep the wheels spinning ever faster just because we are being told our
participation is needed. We can slow down, look around and assess the situation
for ourselves. What life do we want? Who do we want to feed? What food do we
feel best satisfies human, animal and plant life needs? I’ve seen plenty of
research and experiential evidence to say alternatives are all around us. What
we need more of, in my opinion, is the courage and
curiosity to explore. I wish you and your university well in this.
Feel
free to contact me as well if you need someone with whom to bounce around
ideas. David M Neufeld (204) 534-2303, <roomtogrow@explornet.com> Enjoy.