Back to an Organic Future

I read a fascinating article last week by a Mumbai-based journalist, Nishika Patel, who told about India’s struggling farmers, ‘starting to profit from a budding interest in organic living.’ It was, however, made all the more stimulating when read alongside a further two articles which were flagged by the Soil Association  and published in a special supplement in the Times newspaper by Raconteur Media.

The former article appeared on the Guardian’s website. In it, Patel tells about how, in the last seven years, organic farming has begun to take off in India as farmers turn back to more traditional methods. The reasons for this appear to be three-fold:

1. There’s a up to a 20% premium to be earned by selling organic products abroad and in India as people look to eat more healthily and move away from food tainted with chemicals.

2. The cost of pesticides and fertilisers has shot up. Added to this, farmers can only buy expensive, modified seed varieties by taking out loans. This dual economic pressure has pushed many into a spiral of debt, which in some cases has caused some farmers to commit suicide. In contrast, organic farmers are able to slash cultivation and input costs by up to 70% by the use of cheaper, natural products like manure.

3. India’s green revolution, which ushered in the rampant use of pesticides and fertilisers from the 1960s to ensure bumper yields and curb famine and food shortages, has taken its toll on the land, with yields plummeting.

Narendra Singh, of Organic India, laments that, ‘Modern farming has spoiled agriculture . . . An overuse of chemicals has made land acidic and hard, which means it needs even more water to produce, which is costly. Chemicals have killed the biggest civilisation in agriculture – earthworms, which produce the best soil for growth.’ By contrast, Umesh Vishwanath Chaudhari, an organic farmer in the Jalgaon district in Maharashtra makes natural fertilisers and pesticides and produces compost through vermicomposting – using earthworms. The result has been a 40% increase in yields and income, while the worms have permanently returned to the soil in his fields.

Of course, this shouldn’t be happening, well not according to some. In a pair of articles published in the Raconteur supplement, Matt Ridley, a science writer, sought to defend the use of genetically modified food and chemical fertilisers, suggesting that only by such methods are we ever going to save the world’s population from starvation. Given the piece that appeared in the Guardian about India’s organic farmers, Ridley’s words stood out as particularly questionable.

Discussing the legacy of Norman Borlaug, who developed modified forms of wheat designed to ‘withstand heavy applications of synthetic fertilizer without collapsing,’ Ridley praises Borlaug for fighting ‘like a tiger against bureaucratic obstacles to get his wheat varieties tested in India and Pakistan and to open up these countries to fertiliser imports.’ But this has not just saved lives. According to Ridley, without this ‘green revolution’ we would be using 84% of land surface to grow, which would mean the destruction of rain forests, national parks and wetlands. Therefore, the only future is a GM one, as this alone will give the yields we need to feed nine billion people on the least amount of land.

There is another narrative, and it is not void of scientific support, despite what some would have you believe. According to Zeina Al-Hajl, a Greenpeace campaigner, ’[GM] neither contributes to higher yields nor addresses climate change conditions. Their value for sustainable agriculture is highly questionable . . . Rather than increasing critical biodiversity GM places the world’s natural biodiversity at risk . . . [it] is expensive and profit-driven [with] seeds subject to patent claims that indirectly increase the price food and as a result exacerbate poverty and hunger undermining food sovereignty.’

That’s strong stuff, but it’s strength lies in two facts. Firstly, these arguments are backed by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development report, the work of some 400 scientist. Secondly, there is the truth of what is going on in India as farmers turn back to organic farming and away from the GM systems imposed on them, the legacy of which is beginning to unravel.

Supporting the reality of those farmers in India, Al-Hajl suggests that the evidence is that ‘Ecological farming with practices based on biodiversity, and without the use of synthetic fertilisers or pesticides, can produce as much food per hectare as conventional agriculture, and even increase yields, especially in developing countries.’ She goes on, ‘In a recent UN study, analysis of 15 organic farming practices in Africa have shown increases in per-hectare productivity . . . increased farmer incomes, environmental benefits, strengthened communities and enhanced human capital. Organic agriculture can increase productivity and raise incomes with low-cost, locally available and appropriate technologies, without causing environmental damage.’

Clearly this is a debate which will run and run, as there is little by way of consensus. One can only hope that the local, organic farmers of India and Africa have their story told and re-told, and that that their wisdom, knowledge, skill and truth be imported to the West before we buy the story of Ridley et al, that GM is our only hope.

Your comments.