10

Capitalist Agriculture: Putting Soil on a Diet of Snake Oil and Doughnuts

Colin Todhunter

The Monsanto Tribunal in the The Hague (source).

In their rush to readily promote neoliberal dogma and corporate-inspired PR, many government officials, scientists and journalists take as given that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be custodians of natural assets. The premise is that under capitalism water, food, soil and agriculture should be handed over to powerful and wholly corrupt transnational corporations to milk for profit, under the pretence these entities are somehow serving the needs of humanity.

These natural assets (‘the commons’) belong to everyone and any stewardship should be carried out in the common interest by local people assisted by public institutions and governments acting on their behalf, not by private transnational corporations driven by self-interest and the maximization of profit by any means possible.

Concerns about what is in the public interest or what is best for the environment lies beyond the scope of hard-headed commercial interests and should ideally be the remit of elected governments and civil organisations. However, the best-case scenario for private corporations is to have supine, co-opted agencies or governments. And if current litigation cases in the US and the ‘Monsanto Papers’ court documents tell us anything, this is exactly what they set out to create.

Of course, we have known how corporations like Monsanto (and Bayer) have operated for many years, whether it is by bribery, smear campaigns, faking data, co-opting agencies and key figures, subverting science or any of the other actions or human rights abuses that the Monsanto Tribunal shed light on.

Behind the public relations spin of helping to feed the world is the roll-out of an unsustainable model of agriculture based on highly profitable (GM) corporate seeds and massive money-spinning health- and environment-damaging proprietary chemical inputs that we now know lacked proper regulatory scrutiny and should never have been commercialised in the first place. In effect, transnational agribusiness companies have sought to marginalise alternative approaches to farming and create dependency on their products.

Localisation and traditional methods of food production have given way to globalised supply chains dominated by transnational companies policies and actions which have resulted in the colonisation of land in the Global South as well as the destruction of habitat and livelihoods, ecocide, mass displacement of peoples and the imposition of corporate-controlled, chemical-intensive (monocrop) agriculture that weds farmers and regions to a wholly exploitative system of globalised capitalism. Whether it involves the undermining or destruction of what were once largely self-sufficient agrarian economies in Africa or the devastating impacts of soy cultivation in Argentina or palm oil production in Indonesia, transnational agribusiness and capitalism cannot be greenwashed.

Soil on a doughnut diet

One of the greatest natural assets that humankind has is soil. It can take 500 years to generate an inch of soil yet just a few generations to destroy. When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic chemicals, introduce company-patented genetically tampered crops or continuously monocrop as part of a corporate-controlled industrial farming system, you kill essential microbes, upset soil balance and end up feeding soil a limited “doughnut diet” of unhealthy inputs (and you also undermine soil’s unique capacity for carbon storage and its potential role in combatting climate change).

Armed with their synthetic biocides, this is what the transnational agritech companies do. In their arrogance (and ignorance), these companies claim to know what they are doing and attempt to get the public and various agencies to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its scientific priesthood.

But in reality, they have no real idea about the long-term impacts their actions have had on soil and its complex networks of microbes and microbiological processes. Soil microbiologists are themselves still trying to comprehend it all.

That much is clear in this article, where Brian Barth discusses a report by the American Society of Microbiologists (ASM). Acknowledging that farmers will need to produce 70 to 100 per cent more food to feed a projected nine billion humans by 2050, the introduction to the report states:

Producing more food with fewer resources may seem too good to be true, but the world’s farmers have trillions of potential partners that can help achieve that ambitious goal. Those partners are microbes.”

Linda Kinkel of the University of Minnesota’s Department of Plant Pathology is reported by Barth as saying:

We understand only a fraction of what microbes do to aid in plant growth.”

Microbes can help plants better tolerate extreme temperature fluctuations, saline soils and other challenges associated with climate change. For instance, Barth reports that microbiologists have learned to propagate a fungus that colonizes cassava plants and increases yields by up to 20 per cent. Its tiny tentacles extend far beyond the roots of the cassava to unlock phosphorus, nitrogen and sulphur in the soil and siphon it back to their host.

According to the article, a group of microbiologists have challenged themselves to bring about a 20 per cent increase in global food production and a 20 per cent decrease in fertilizer and pesticide use over the next 20 years – without all the snake oil-vending agribusiness interests in the middle.

Feeding the world?

These microbiologists are correct. What is required is a shift away from what is increasingly regarded as discredited Green Revolution ideology. The chemical-intensive green revolution has helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health (see this report on India by botanist Stuart Newton – p.9 onward).

Adding weight to this argument, the authors of this paper from the International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development state (references in article):

Cropping systems promoted by the green revolution have increased the food production but also resulted in reduced food-crop diversity and decreased availability of micronutrients. Micronutrient malnutrition is causing increased rates of chronic diseases (cancer, heart diseases, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis) in many developing nations; more than 3 billion people are directly affected by the micronutrient deficiencies. Unbalanced use of mineral fertilizers and a decrease in the use of organic manure are the main causes of the nutrient deficiency in the regions where the cropping intensity is high.”

(Note: we should adopt a cautious approach when attributing increases in food production to the green revolution trechnology/practices).

The authors imply that the link between micronutrient deficiency in soil and human nutrition is increasingly regarded as important:

Moreover, agricultural intensification requires an increased nutrient flow towards and greater uptake of nutrients by crops. Until now, micronutrient deficiency has mostly been addressed as a soil and, to a smaller extent, plant problem. Currently, it is being addressed as a human nutrition problem as well. Increasingly, soils and food systems are affected by micronutrients disorders, leading to reduced crop production and malnutrition and diseases in humans and plants. Conventionally, agriculture is taken as a food-production discipline and was considered a source of human nutrition; hence, in recent years many efforts have been made to improve the quality of food for the growing world population, particularly in the developing nations.”

Referring to India, Stuart Newton’s states (p.24):

The answers to Indian agricultural productivity is not that of embracing the international, monopolistic, corporate-conglomerate promotion of chemically-dependent GM crops… India has to restore and nurture her depleted, abused soils and not harm them any further, with dubious chemical overload, which are endangering human and animal health.”

Newton provides insight into the importance of soils and their mineral compositions and links their depletion to the green revolution. In turn, these depleted soils cannot help but lead to mass malnourishment. This is quite revealing given that proponents of the green revolution claim it helped reduced malnutrition.

And Newton has a valid point. India is losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion, much of which is attributed to the indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is become deficient in nutrients and fertility.

The US has possibly 60 years of farming left due to soil degradation. The UK has possibly 100 harvests left in its soils.

We can carry on down the route of chemical-intensive (and soil-suffocating, nutritionally inferior GM crops), poisonous agriculture, where our health, soil and the wider environment from Punjab to the Gulf of Mexico continue to be sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit. Or we can shift to organic farming and agroecology and investment in indigenous models of agriculture as advocated by various high-level agencies and reports.

The increasingly globalised industrial food regime that transnational agribusiness promotes is not feeding the world and is also responsible for some of the planet’s most pressing political, social and environmental crises – not least hunger and poverty. This system, the capitalism driving it and the corporations that fuel and profit from it are illegitimate and destructive.

These companies quite naturally roll-out their endless spin that we can’t afford to live without them. But we can no longer afford to live with them. As the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver says:

The power of the corporations over governments and over the scientific community is extremely important. If you want to deal with pesticides, you have to deal with the companies.”

As we currently see in litigation cases involving Monsanto in the US, part of ‘dealing’ with these corporations (and hopefully eventually their board members and those who masquerade as public servants but who act on their behalf) should involve the law courts.

I would go further than Elver by saying that while dealing with these corporations is a step forward, we must also address the root cause: capitalism and its international relations of production and consumption. And we must also offer solutions – beginning with an agroecology that is underpinned by a strong ecosocialist political vision.

Colin Todhunter is an independent journalist who writes on development, environmental issues, politics, food and agriculture. He was named in August 2018 by Transcend Media Services as one of 400 Living Peace and Justice Leaders and Models in recognition of his journalism.

Filed under: agriculture, Economics, environment, GMO, India, latest, science & technology

by

Colin Todhunter is an independent journalist who writes on development, environmental issues, politics, food and agriculture. He was named in August 2018 by Transcend Media Services as one of 400 Living Peace and Justice Leaders and Models in recognition of his journalism.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John A
John A

Basically it is yet another case of privatising the profits, socialising the losses.

Narrative
Narrative

“The power of the corporations over governments ..”

We can clearly see the lobbyists destroying the democratic system of governance. What is less discussed is the desire of governments (with neoliberal agenda, which means most governments today) to cede responsibility to big corporations.

So .. in a way .. the lobbyists are not merely sent by Big Business to influence governments, but we find that governments want more of those lobbyists in order to accelerate the transfer of power from governments to much much less accountable organisations like Big Corporations.

It is not the Corporations who are initiating and staging this coup, it’s the governments who are ceding power willingly and forcefully and engineering some kind of new world [dis]order!

vexarb

Narrative, it’s the Revolving Door. Ostentatiously Christian NuLabour regime starts Resource War which transfers Iraqi Oil to Rothschild Oil Companies and Iraqi Banks to Rothschild Banks; Ostentatiously Christian NuLabour PMs B.Liar and Brownstuff exit through Revolving Door; emerge with “only a modest fortune” from Directorships in Rothschild companies.

Antonym
Antonym

Again GMOs being tied to only India, by the same person: clear case of a political campaign.

Observe
Observe

clutching well onto your sniper-riffle?

Narrative
Narrative

Look how this issue (agriculture) is intimately linked to the health and well-being of every human (and every creature). It is sad that we need to be reminded that agriculture is the backbone of humanity. –together with breathable fresh air.

But the fact is, in our modern daily life, we are shielded by the ‘system’ from vital ‘agricultural’ information. A glaring example, we go to the supermarket, a modern building (in most cases), with no connection to the natural world. On the packaging, there are pictures of trees or beautiful farms but that’s all. There is no sense of connection with nature and no interaction with the natural world.

Unfortunately, if products are not organic, the production process is often contaminated, perhaps severely contaminated through industrialisation and the usage of toxic agri-chemicals.

Totally absent, from controlled media which is dedicated to advertise processed food, is the ‘REAL’ state of our daily food and nourishment. Serious discussion is badly needed. Politicians are needed to take the side of the people/human beings, and not the side of Big Business and Big Agri-Chemicals/Big Pharma.

mark
mark

The EU has just been caught out rubber stamping puff pieces by Monsanto on how wonderful Glyphosate is.
They used dirty tricks to destroy the career of a woman scientist in the US who published a study arguing it was carcinogenic.
They maintain a stable of tame bought and paid for “scientists” to attack anyone who raises any concerns, and have all the politicians in their pockets.
I was surprised to see that stuff on sale in Tesco in the UK.

In countries like Germany, they reckon that 70%+ of the insects, the bottom of the food chain for birds and small animals, have disappeared. This sounds very plausible. Remember years ago when you were driving along on a summer’s day and the windscreen was covered in bug splats when you got out? Never seems to happen any more.

I asked an ornithologist why there aren’t any sparrows now and you see a lot of odd birds around like cormorants. What’s all that about? Is it global warming? He said no, just modern farming methods. Pesticides, herbicides, none of the old style barns to nest in or the old style hedge rows.

Bees seem particularly hard hit by the nicotinoids, and they pollinate 160,000 plants and flowers.

Countries that are GM free, like Russia, could have a very bright future in agriculture.

vexarb

Russia is already the world’s largest exporter of wheat — all of it GM free. Which means free of GlyPhos Roundup.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum

“Daddy, is the world gonna end soon?”
“Be quiet Ben, and eat your vegetables”

binra

Is it as much about arriving at a Technocracy of Things in which all inputs and outputs are recorded and effectively controllable – as part of the power to remake life in our own (their) image? Or indeed to bring it to destruction? (Is there a fundamental difference!).
Greed is a trait that makes for controllable assets.

Technocracy also operates regulatory capture and contractual entrapments.
Those who determine the terrain determine what can grow in its framing.
While our life is IN Life – our self is invested in the social construct of an acquired and inherited drive to define in order to predict and control – as protection from feared outcomes – and more importantly, self exposure.

Captured science is perhaps the issue of our time because the science-masked narrative is the authority by which policy is set. CO2 has been designated a threat to health – with that kind of lever, bringing the population and corporate sector into subjection becomes a matter of compliance in order to move or do anything. And there are always those willing or perhaps coerced to betray others in order to protect or further their own private interests.