Intensive industrial agriculture, reasons why not.

What is intensive/industrial farming?

Intensive farming is an agricultural system through which (it is claimed) more food will be produced and the lower the price will be for the consumer.

This system infact generates huge external economic costs and other serious impacts on humanity and the environment:-

• Loss of farmers' livlihoods, and cause of malnutrition in developing nations.


• Severe and chronic illnesses caused by pesticides/fungicides


• Environmental pollution.


• Soil degradation.


• Lack of biodiversity.


• Extinction of crop varieties and gene pools.


• Loss of nutritional value of food.


• Huge external economic costs, involved in production and food-supply chain.

More information on the above included in this post.

• Brief description of farming system below:-
  
  · Monoculture. Large areas of a single crop, often grown year after year on the same land, or with little crop rotation.
  
  · Agrichemicals. Intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers to fight pests and diseases and provide nutrients.
  
  · Hybrid seed. Use of specialized hybrids designed to favour large scale food distribution, eg ability to ripen off the vine, to withstand shipping and handling.
  
  · High mechanization.
  
  · Large scale irrigation- heavy water use and in some cases growing of crops in otherwise unsuitable regions (rice paddies on arid land).
  
  · Genetically engineered crops. Use of genetically modified varieties(GMOs) designed for large scale production (with ability to withstand selected herbicides)
  
  Opponents of the intensive system of agriculture say that politicians, business leaders and the media are misleading the public in their claim which states ‘ the more that chemicals and technology are applied to agriculture, the more food will be produced and the lower the price will be for the consumer.’
  
  Opponents also question the fundamental objectives of the structure of the modern food chain.:-
  
  The Ecologist Magazine, in its article ‘Fatal Harvest’(01/11/2002) says ‘The myth of cheapness completely ignores the staggering externalized costs of the food, costs that do not appear on supermarket checkout receipts. Conventional analyses of the cost of food completely ignore the exponentially increasing social and environmental costs consumers are currently paying and will have to pay in the future. Americans spend tens of millions of dollars in taxes, medical care, toxic clean-ups, insurance premiums and other pass-along costs to subsidise industrial food producers. Given the ever –increasing health, environmental and social destruction involved in industrial agriculture, the real price of food production for future generations is incalculable.’
  
  ‘Around 31,000 tonnes of chemicals are used in farming in yhe UK each year to kill weeds, insects and other pests that attack crops and in 2004, 40% of the fruit, vegetables and bread samples tested in the UK contained pesticides. There is very little control over how these chemicals are used in the non-organic sector and in what quantities or combinations. The Food Standards Agency recocnizes that most people do not want pesticides in their food. Pesticides have a devastating effect on the environment and there are real concerns about the effectiveness of official safety regulations of pesticides, and some risks to human health are unknown.’ (Soil Association)
  
  For information concerning exposure to agricultural pesticides for rural residents in the UK, visit the website pesticidescampaign.co.uk
  
  Summary of Impacts of Intensive Agriculture.
  
  1. Health problems. Vast quantities of pesticides and fungicides are sprayed onto farmland every year- 31,000 tons in the UK. This leads to a range of health problems. Pesticide exposure can happen through skin contact, inhalation, or pesticide residues in food and water. .Studies have shown that a combination of low-level insecticides, herbicides and nitrates can effect our bodies in ways chemicals in isolation do not. ‘Studies have shown that 3 pesticides consumed together equal up to 100 times the effect of any one on its own.(sometimes referred to as the cocktail effect) Along with their cancer risk, pesticides can cause myriad other health problems-especially for young people. For example, exposure to neurotoxic compounds like PCB’s and organophosphate insecticides during critical periods of development can cause permanent damage to the brain and nervous and reproductive systems’(Ecologist Magazine,article Fatal Harvest).
  
  2. Environmental Pollution..
  
  1. Pollution though spraydrift in the air. Spraydrift can be carried for many miles by the wind/air currents..Rain water in parts of Europe contain such high levels of dissolved pesticides, it would be illegal to sell it as drinking water.
  2. Pollution through agrichemical build-ups and run-off.
  3. Carbon emissions. Use of fossil fuels for agrichemical manufacture and for farm machinery and long-distance distribution. Processing and packaging also adds to high energy use.
  
  3. Soil degradation. Heavy use of fertilizers, and lack of crop rotation, causes degradation of soil quality and lack of soil fertility.
  “The overuse of chemicals and machines on industrial farms erodes away the topsoil-the fertile earth from which all food is grown. The US has lost half of its topsoil since 1960, and continues losing topsoil 17 times faster than nature can create it”(The Ecologist)
  
  4.Lack of Biodiversity. Biodiversity can refer to:-
  (1) Genetic diversity in agriculture
  (2) Animal/insect/plant species.
  
  The UN Food and Agriculture Organization report that 70% of genetic diversity in agriculture disappeared in this last century. The resulting monocultured crops are genetically limited and far more susceptible to insect blights, diseases and bad weather, than are diverse crops.
  
  Biodiversity in wildlife. Pesticides and fungicides are toxic to insects, fish and wildlife. Some birds, butterflies and non-pest insects have become endangered or extinct through intensive agriculture. This represents a threat to the ecological system.In addition many target insects and plants which damage crops are becoming resistant to pesticides. 1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weedsare now resistant to pesticides.
  
  5.Loss of indigenous crops. Indigenous crops are going out of production because demand is driven by the global market.
  
  6.Crop varieties and gene pools are under threat from monocropping system. - “The world’s crop gene pool contained in seeds is essential for increasing crop productivity, mitigating environmental stress such as climate change, pests and diseases, and ensuring a genetic resource base for the future. Crop diversity contained in the world’s seed collections is constantly under threat from natural and human-led disasters”(Jacques Diouf, Director of Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations.)

7.Loss of farmers' livlihoods. "The economic pressures of industrial
agriculture have led to a sharp decline in the numbers of so-called 'inefficient' farms with smaller family farms being particularly badly hit. For example in the US there were close to seven million farms in the 1930s, but less than 1.8 by the mid 1990s; in France 3 million farms in the 1960s, yet fewer than 700,000 in the 1990s, 450,000 farms in the UK, in the 1950s, half that number in the 1990s. Over the past 50 yrs the number of actual farmers has declined by 86% in Germany, 85% in France, 85% in Japan, 64% in the US, 59% in Korea, and 59% in the UK." (Food Wars,Tim Lang & Michael Heasman).

"In Brazil soybean cultivation displaces 11 agricultural workers for every one who finds employment.....In Argentina 60,000 farms went out of business while the area of 'Roundup Ready' soybean almost tripled. In 1998 there were 422,000 farms in Argentina while in 2002 there were 318,000. One and a half million Mexican farmers have been put out of work because of the Free Trade Agreement with America in which cheap (subsidized)American corn was imported." (GM Soya Disaster in Latin America, Hunger, Deforestation and Socio-Ecological Devastation.Professor Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Professor Walter A. Pengue, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina).

8. Impact on nutritional value of food. This includes freshness, flavour and range of products available.
Research at Newcastle University has found that…”organically produced crops and dairy milk usually contain more ‘beneficial compounds’ such as vitamins and antioxidants. The research has shown up to 40% more beneficial compounds in vegetable crops and up to 90% more in milk. It has also found high levels of minerals, such as iron and zinc in organic produce” (Sunday Times, ‘Eat your words, all who scoff at organic food’, By Jon Ungoed-Thomas,Oct.28,2007)
. For a list of research results regarding nutritional value of organic versus intensively produced produce, see Soil Association Press release, 22/2/2008, ‘Soil Association response to Horizon programme’. ·

Genetically modified crops.

.“In the context of agriculture and animal husbandry this technology has far reaching implications as it allows the introduction into plants and animals of entirely new characteristics including genes originally found in unrelated plants, animals or micro-organisms. This is very different from traditional breeding practices”( From-‘How GM Crops Endanger Environment and Agriculture’. (Bharat Dogra, Mainstream Weekly, Saturday 26 January 2008.)

The crucial claim of gm protagonists is - because the world’s population is rising fast, famine and increasing food deficiency is inevitable without GM crops. They also claim that GM crops are good for consumers, farmers and the environment.

Opponents of GM’s point to how arguments for GM’s are based on a misreading of the worlds food problems. They say that the problem is one of distribution, and globalisation, rather than production. Further to this they strongly dispute the claims for GM crops made by corporates.

Further doubts regarding GM technology in agriculture is that they represent potential health hazards, and endanger the environment and agriculture. These issues are outlined in 'Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods’ by Stephen Lendman, -opednews.com March 2008.

In 2003, six principal countries grew 99% of the global transgenic crop area. The US grew 42.8 million hectares, followed by Argentina with 13.9 million, Canada 4.4million, Brazil 3 million, China 2.8 million and S.Africa 0.4 million hectares.

‘Friends of the Earth International’ has recently published a full, fact-based report called “who benefits from gm crops?"(Jan 2008)
The report seriously challenges the claims of GM proponents, and says they have failed to deliver on any of the proposed benefits, these are summarised below:-

• Claim-GM crops will need less spraying of pesticides and will therefore benefit the environment. FAILED


• Claim-Poor farmers will benefit. FAILED


• Claim-GM's will tackle hunger. FAILED
  
• Claim-Higher crop yields. FAILED
  Summary of report:-



• It describes how in the US there was a 15 fold increase in the use of herbicide Roundup between1994 and2004, because pests and weeds are becoming resistant to pesticides.


• Seed prices are on the rise, fewer suppliers means less competition and more market power to set prices.


• Fewer seed choices.


• Since gm cotton was adopted in the Makhatini Flats in South Africa, around three quarters of small farmers have gone out of business.


• Most commercial gm crops are grown for animal feed for western countries and biofuels. None have been used to address hunger and poverty issues.


• Brazilian experience in 2007 proved beyond doubt that gm crops are extensively contaminating conventional and organic soya.


• By the end of October 2007, it has been estimated that there have been over 900 cotton farmer suicides, or an average of three suicides a day (ENS, 3 October 2007;Wide angle,2007; Petition to Indian Prime Minister,Swift, April2007) Despite the increase in adoption of Bt cotton, this trend has not diminished, and farmers' livlihoods are under dire threat. In addition, many reports of poor performances of Bt cotton have been registered in the area ('The Hindu,' 16 February 2007)

Friends of the Earth International states...."in the US the biotech industry has still not introduced a single GM crop that has enhanced nutrition, higher yield potential, drought tolerance, salt tolerance or other promised traits..."

.

Big Bully says, "Disagreements...should be expressed in legal ways".

On March 7th about 300 Brazilian women raided a research unit of the agricultural biotech company Monsanto and destroyed an experimental field of corn. These facilities are located in Santa Cruz das Palmeiras, in Sao Paulo state.
The group of activists protested the Brazilian government's decision last month to give clearance for two varieties of GM corn for commercial use-MON810, produced by Monsanto and Liberty Link made by Germany's Bayer CropScience.

MON810 is the variety which has been banned in France after strong protests in that country.

The claim by Monsanto that small farmers could be among the most who benefit from biotechnology, is by now proven around the world to be disastrously misleading. (see previous posts).

Monsanto condemned the invasion by the Brazilian activists, saying in a statement "in a democratic regime, disagreements, ideological or not, should be expressed in legal ways". The problem with this rather hypocritical statement is that around the world we see that the takeover by biotech companies is impervious to the democratic process, because governments are approving the GM technology counter to public opinion. Big farmers, and governments are attracted by the financial and convenience factors of GM technology, but these are temporary advantages. GM farming involves loss of land and livlihoods for small farmers throughout the world. Even in Canada, US, and Europe, farmers have discovered that GM crops have not delivered on their claims, and pesticide use has had to be increased.

In Brasilia, a protest by another 400 women from an umbrella group, Via Campesina(the Rural Way) was held in front of the Swiss Embassy against Syngenta, A Swiss company that is selling genetically engineered seeds in Brazil. Via Campesina said in a statement that "no scientific studies exist that guarantee that genetically modified crops won't have negative effects on human health and on nature." A spokesperson for Via Campesina also said "The authorization of these varieties shows once more that (President Luiz inacio Lula de silva's) government favors agribusiness and bigforeign companies abandoning land reform and family farming"

Pro-GM PM.

Public demand for free range eggs and chickens has soared in the UK since the tv series featuring two chefs who highlighted the cruelty involved in raising battery hens. The demand has been so great that UK producers have run out of supply and supermarkets have resorted to sourcing from France. What has all this to do with GM’s?.... despite ever increasing demand for organic and free range produce, these foods which the public prefer are being bullied out of the market by the biotech industries’ unethical practices.

GM’s are making inroads by stealth, one route being by contamination of non-GM crops. Greenpeace said (on 28/2/2008) that it recorded 39 instances (in 24 countries) of genetically modified crops spreading improperly in 2007. Doreen Stabinsky, a US geneticist working on Greenpeace’s anti-GMO campaign said the report dealt with several types of contamination, including cases of crops that have not yet been approved for release escaping into the wild. More commonly crops approved for use in one place had spread elsewhere. Most of the contamination involved such staple crops as rice and maize, but also soy, cotton, canola, papaya and fish.
Considering that contamination scandals are not good publicity for GM’s exports or reputation, Greenpeace wonders why biotech companies let it happen? They observe that contamination allows biotech companies to argue that their crops should not be regulated as they are already in the food chain.

Meanwhile the UK government is paving the way for future GM trials (somewhere near to Cambridge). They are keeping the locations secret in case anyone may try to rip up the crops. Julian Little of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council said “We have to find a way of reducing the amount of damage you get when you do a field trial in the UK,that’s absolutely imperative.” This statement is of breathtaking audacity, considering the damage they do to farmers’ livelihoods, for which they provide no compensation.

The Independent featured John Turner (28/10/07)….’A succession of trials near his 250 acre farm…..south Lincolnshire, between 2000 and 2002 forced him to stop growing certain crops-suffering heavy financial losses as a result. John Turner said “It was a nightmare and we just felt absolutely powerless to do anything over it at all……without any real protection against contamination, we were forced to stop growing crops like maize that could be vulnerable to cross pollination. It wasn’t easy but it was preferable to the damage that could have been done if our crops were no longer GM free”. Mr Turner believes the facts are being twisted to fit a commercial agenda…”There is no sound science behind the push for GM crops. It’s all about money and control of not only the seeds but also food production from one end to the other. The more I find out about it the less I understand why there has been this impetus to force this technology on farming. It has been hugely overhyped by those trying to promote it. There are plenty of ways of improving crops that don’t involve swapping genes around…..”

So why haven’t the government introduced legislation to hold biotech companies to account financially for contaminating non-GM crops?

GM crops,World Shortage of Wheat and Biotech Industry.

The UK is seen as one of the last bastions to be conquered by the biotech industry regarding GM crops. They aim to establish GMO’s as the only farming system worldwide. At the present time public opinion in the UK and France is standing in the way of this corporate ambition in Europe.
This take-over process doesn’t involve real dialogue with the public about the risks and dangers of GM’s, or the social and moral issues concerning their introduction. It does involve wielding brute economic power. The United States says it could seek compensation for the millions of dollars in lost exports and licensing fees for biotech crops it is suffering because of EU bans.

When the GM industry does attempt to influence public opinion, they often refer to the problems experienced by southern hemisphere countries of food shortage due to crop failure. In answer they claim that GM crops bring higher yields.
John Hillary, Policy Director of ‘War on Want’, supports a safer more sustainable policy for dealing with crop shortages. He points out that as a result of the trade liberalisation packages which opened up new markets, some countries were made more vulnerable to the vagaries of world economy. Because their own domestic supplies are put under more strain as a result of having been opened up to global economy, they are made more reliant to imports of basic staple foods, which they cannot afford. Twenty years ago 90% of all rice eaten in Ghana was grown in Ghana. That percentage is now only 10%. In the last 10 to 15 years, 30 million jobs have been lost around the world because local domestic supply chains have been opened up.
John Hillary says we must support the development of sustainable LOCAL food production systems.

This local control over food production would also mean that communities would be able to grow the most appropriate crops for their own consumption, rather than crops dictated by global trade demand.

Genetically modified crops are not delivering on the promised benefits of increased yields, reduced pesticide use or tackling world hunger.

Last year there was a big increase in the production of crops for biofuels at the same time as an increased demand for wheat (eg from China)

The growing of biofuels last year caused the food prices in the United States to more than double. Tortilla flour, staple food of the Mexicans more than doubled in price.

So one immediate action should be to cease the growing of biofuels.It has been proven that biofuels do not solve the problem of carbon emmissions.

The Sky is Thin as Paper Here.

THE SKY IS THIN AS PAPER HERE.

Section of lithograph, Robert Rauchenberg,1981

GM Crop Trials.

Is this what DEFRA refers to as 'stewardship of the countryside?'

For most people stewardship of the countryside probably brings to mind well-kept hedgerows, woodland and strips of set-aside land, for wildlife to thrive, or at least survive. But DEFRA's brave new world involves the forceful protection of vast acreages of monotonous monocrops, grown so that corporate capitalism can thrive.

The company BASF will begin planting GM potatos on the outskirts of Cambridge soon. In preparation they are constructing hundreds of metal fences with the attendant security and surveillance paraphernalia. Question- 'are they intending to protect commercial crops in this way if they get the government go-ahead in the UK?'

Friends of The Earth have compiled a long and detailed report which exposes the misleading propaganda of the pro-GM lobbies (DEFRA, NFU, Biotech firms) Rather than be misled by the claims for higher crop yields, less pesticide use, etc etc, it's vital to find out what the huge impacts and risks of GM's really are on the environment, on human health, on wildlife, and on the future of food and agriculture. We can't risk not finding out, there's too much at stake. Visit the FOE website to download their report.

Pests have evolved resistance to GM crops.

The GM corporates seem like those stubborn and relentless rulers who won't relinquish their hold on power and cease their destructive policies, despite the suffering and protests of their citizens.

Recent news on 8th Feb, has reported that one of the most destructive pests of cotton crops has evolved a resistance to GM crops. It is believed to be the first documented example in the wild of an insect pest becoming resistant to this particular type of GM crop which was thought to be immune to the problems that have plagued conventional pesticides.

The Independent says that 'In the case of the GM cotton crop the Bollworm insect developed resistance because of the huge area of land in America and elsewhere where GM crops modified with Bt genes are now grown. This has generated one of the largest forces of natural selection for insect resistance that the world has ever known, according to the researches whose study will be published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.'

Genetically modified crops, secrecy, lack of democracy,UK Government and GM crops.

'Friends of The Earth' commented on their website that public companies have to maximise profit and keep investors happy. This means economic growth comes before people and the planet. They also stated that many corporates were now more powerful than governments. Both of these assertions are undoubtedly true but the fact that corporates are more powerful than governments doesn't necessarily mean that there is not an enthusiasm on the part of governments to accomodate the demands of corporates.

Our own UK government is hell bent on introducing GM crops into the UK, in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the population. The purpose, they tell us is to create more economic growth. Yet the experts (and common sense) tell us that economic growth will create more environmental damage and global warming.

In October 2007 newspapers described how the government was concealing its support for biotech research. This support involved funding genetically modified crop projects with scores of millions of pounds every year and colluding with a biotech company to ease its GM tests.

The documents which revealed this information were obtained through the freedom of information act and showed that the government colluded with a biotech company in setting conditions for testing GM potatos. In other words DEFRA officials repeatedly went to remarkable lengths to make sure that the trial conditions supposed to protect the environment and farmers, were 'agreeable' to the company.

FOE obtained information which showed that the government provides at least £50 million a year for research into biotechnology, largely GM crops and food. This in stark contrast to £1.6million given in 2006 for research into organic agriculture.

We always come back to the same question. 'Who really stands to gain from the introduction of GM crops?'

GM crops pose an issue of universal human rights.

The more I learn about farming in Cuba, the more impressive I realize the Cuban achievement is. I mentioned the organic agriculture of Cuba in a previous post. Using little mechanization and no pesticides or fungicides or synthetic fertilizers, Cuba has managed to produce enough food to feed its high population. In addition, the overall effect of living in the city (Havanna) with every available little space of land, and bigger allotment areas given over to the growing of lovingly cared for fruit and vegetables, this is something that environmentally has a positive psychological effect on communities. Britain has a lot to learn in this respect about land use, rather than using our unused bits of grassland and scrubland in towns and cities as dumping grounds for litter, or the UK government making it policy to build housing in gardens. With the problems of global warming this issue of land use is as vital for the western world as it is for Cuba.






Bharat Dogra, a respected journalist in India has written about the social, cultural, human health and environmental problems caused in his own and in developing countries, posed by intensive farming systems and GM crops.Talking about GM technology, Bharat says that ..."critics fear very serious and irreversible damage can be caused to our environment, to our food systems and to the health of millions of people".


His article in 'Mainstream Weekly entitled "How GM crops Endanger Environment and Agriculture" is an excellent summary of the main issues. For the purpose of this post I would just like to mention his comments regarding the social impacts on communities of a technology which is not only in effect stealing and destroying our universal human rights to preserve the genetic make up of our crops and all plant life, but also the right of farmers thoughout the world to farm their land according to their own sophisticated and deep knowledge derived from thousands of years of farming tradition, in their own geographical areas.





Bharat Dogra says GM .."technology is spreading so fast that very adverse consequences can result even before we have the time to understand the consequences"..He continues..."In this context the experience generally has been that the high expectations created by big companies promoting GM crops were not justified. In some cases the yields for a short initial period were indeed high, creating a rush for the new seeds, but after some time such expectations could not be maintained. On the other hand, there are many examples of farmers who invested their meagre resources and borrowed heavily to buy expensive GM seeds and other supporting inputs (for example, herbicides linked to these seeds) but later felt betrayed as the low yield left them indebted and saddled with debts. There were even reports of suicides by these farmers. There have been allegations of GM crops like Bt cotton being introduced in rainfed areas like those of Vidarbha (India) for which these were not suited."


One of the reasons the GM industry uses to justify its reductive technology is that less pesticides will be necessary to use with these crops. However, although this might initially be the case, throughout the world farmers are reporting that soon they are having to use more pesticides than ever.

At the end of his article Bharat quotes a paper written by Ricarda A. Steinbrecker (Science Director of the Genetics Forum UK) and Pat Roy Mooney (widely acclaimed winner of The Right to Livlihood Award).


.........." On March 3rd, 1998 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a little-known cotton-seed enterprise called Delta and Pine Land Company, acquired US patent 5,723,765 - or the Technology Protection System (TPS). Within days, the rest of the world knew TPS as Terminator Technology. Its declared goal is to promulgate plants that will produce self-terminating offspring-suicide seeds. Terminator Technology epitomises what the genetic engineering of food crops is all about and gives an insight into the driving forces behind the corporate campaign to control and own life.


The Terminator does more than ensure that farmers can’t successfully replant their harvested seed. It is the “platform” upon which companies can load their proprietary genetic traits—patented genes for herbicide-tolerance or insect-resistance and get the farmers hooked on their seeds and caught in the chemical treadmill.
Further this paper says:
Most alarming though is the possibility that the Terminator genes themselves could infect the agricultural gene pool of the neighbour’s crops and of wild and weedy relatives, placing a time bomb. Temporary “gene silencing” of the poison gene or failed activation of the Terminator countdown enables such infection.
Between 15 and 20 per cent of the World’s food supply is grown by poor farmers who save their seed. These farmers feed at least 1.4 billion people. The Terminator “protects” companies by risking the lives of these people. Since Terminator Technology has absolutely zero agronomic benefit, there is no reason to jeopardise the food security of the poor by gambling with genetic engineering in the field. Whether the Terminator works immediately or later, in either instance it is biological warfare on farmers and food security. The Terminator also portends a hidden dark side. As a Trojan Horse for other transgenic traits, the technology might also be used to switch any trait off or on. At least in theory, the technology points to the possibility that crop diseases could be triggered by seed exports that would not have to “kick in” immediately—or not until activated by specific chemicals or conditions. This form of biological warfare on people’s food and economics is becoming a hot topic in military and security circles.Clearly the threat from GM crops to natural farming systems and environment is so serious that any commercial release cannot be allowed. Even any experimental trials should be asked to wait till definite ways to avoid hazards can be found."





In terms of human rights alone, there are huge issues at stake with the advent of GM crops. Brutal corporate pressure is eager to recover their investments and make profit.

Biotech companies reveal their selfish motives....again.

Biotech companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF claim that they are committed to reducing poverty and hunger throughout the world (altruistic motives indeed), but they have withdrawn from a major international project to map out the future of agriculture.

The International Assembly of Agriculture, Science and Technology for Development is concentrating attention on how to feed the world's population. This project is based on the work of 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world.However, Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF resigned after a draft report from the project highlighted the risks of GM crops and said they could pose problems for the developing world.

So, it seems that these corporates are not so altruistic after all. When they are prevented from distributing their GM seeds throughout the world, they are not interested in contributing to the project at all.

The draft report of the project said there is a "wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern technology many of which are yet unknown." The report also stated that it is not clear whether GM crops increase yields and warns that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved, as well as causing problems with patents.
The science journal 'Nature' commented that the view that "......biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty" is mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy makers.

French Farmer Calls Off Hunger Strike.

The following is from Paris 'Associated Press' Jan 11 2008.

..."Militant French farmer Jose Bove and about 15 supporters called off their hunger strike in its eighth day after the government ordered the suspension of the use of genetically modified corn.

France will suspend cultivation of MON810, the seed for the only type of genetically modified corn now allowed in the country, until a European Union review is conducted, Prime Minister Francois Fillon's office said.

The move was based on a recommendation this week by a government-appointed panel calling for "the need for additional analyses on the health and environmental effects of the genetically modified product MON810 in the long term," Fillon's office said in a statement.

Bove and his supporters began the hunger strike Jan 3, saying they hoped to pressure the government to make good on a promise in November to suspend cultivation of MON810. He said they only drank water or unsweetened tea during the protest.

The seed, which resists some types of insects, was authorized before a government-ordered moratorium on genetically modified products took effect in 1999. Last year, it was planted in about 54,000 acres in France-mainly in southern farmland.

Bove rose to fame in August 1999 when he and supporters used farm equipment to dismantle a McDonald's branch under construction in the foothills of France's Massif Central mountains.

He has faced repeated trials and served jail time for destroying genetically modified crops." (End of quote)

France's environment minister Jean-Louis Boloo told the National Assembly that the clampdown on MON810 was a precaution that would only last until the release of an European re-evaluation of the crop in the coming month. Borloo insisted that biotechnologies were crucial for France....."In terms of agriculture it is doubly crucial for us. We have trouble feeding six billion people, nine billion tomorrow, with less arable land and probable less productive soil" Borloss said.

Borloo voices the pro GM mantra here, that 'biotechnology is needed to feed the growing populations.' The more we explore this claim, the more a different story emerges....

I mentioned in a previous post the Ethiopian farmers who have rejected the introduction of foreign seeds, due to the negative environmental and health impacts . The same sort of resistance to the introduction of foreign seeds has recently been expressed by farmers and scientists in Bangladesh. Agents of multinational companies have made a bid to introduce one-time usable foreign hybrid paddy seeds in the Sidr-southern region. (hurricanes have led to a seed crisis in this region.) Local agricultural experts and farmers have said that the introduction of foreign seeds will threaten extinction of local varieties, which have good taste and greater nutritional value. Also production costs will rise as foreign varieties need more care and costly fertilizer, irrigation and pesticides. The Bangladesh Rice Research Institute says that the government should take initiative for collection, preparation development and supply of local varieties of paddy seeds and take measures so that farmers are not lured to use foreign seeds for 'more profit'.

We see here an echo of Jose Bove's warning of how GM crops represent more than a potential risk to health and environment, but also destroy communities as small farmers are forced off the land.

French farmer on hunger strike over GM crops

Much of the opposition to GM crops is based on the potential harm they pose to humans and wildlife, and the possibility of uncontrollable spread of modified genes into non GM plants and crops.

In addition to the risks posed to humans and the environment, Jose Bove expresses a further concern over GM's. His ethical opposition is perhaps best summed up in his slogan "the world is not merchandise" and " the earth is not for sale".

Many French people regret the effects of globalisation on its rural traditions and farming practice. Bove and his supporters talk about "preservation". He describes how small farmers in France preserve nature through their inherited knowledge and expertise in agriculture. These skills are inseperable from the cultural and social aspects of rural life, from land and animal husbandry to food production,(wine, cheese, meats, pate, etc.)

When Bove refers to "preservation" he is not speaking in a nostalgic or luddite way,(as UK Professor David King likes to characterise the anti-GM campaigners).

From 1998 Bove represented small family farmers as being uniquely qualified to speak about food quality and to fulfil their duty to protect and develop French seeds.

The idea of "preservation" that Bove portrays is a practical, robust, and economic concept. One that is both productive and environmentally sustainable, while continuing to care for cultural and social traditions.

Bove challenges the multinationals for imposing an exploitative international economy. By colonizing and controlling the whole of the food chain, multinationals impose homogeneity on agricultural production, and food production. Nations which are colonised in this way by corporates experience the destruction of their rural communities, livlihoods of farmers, environmental degradation, and also detrimental effects on the health of their people.

French farmer Jose Bove on anti-GMO hunger strike.

Jose Bove (see previous post) and 15 other campaigners started their hunger strike two weeks ago on January 3rd.

Bove wants the French government to use European Union Legislation that allows members to ban GM crops.

At the present time Nicolas Sarkozy, France's President, has suspended the use of MON810, the only GM crop currently authorized in France. This crop is a brand of maize which is highly bug-resistent, and developed by the US agrochemical company Monsanto.

A bill on regulating GM crops is due to be debated in Fance's national assembly later this month and a vote is expected before February 9th, when the government's temporary freeze is due to end.

(More on Bove and his campaign here soon.)

EU Faces Deadline on GM Food Ban. The Parasite Crops.

"People who campaign against GM crops are committing a crime against humanity". Not my words. This seems to be the latest ludicrous claim of the GM protagonists in their attempts to conquer the European market. 'Ludicrous' because in view of the problems caused by GM's, described only briefly below, it would be far more accurate to describe the GM corporates as committing a crime against humanity:-

• the contamination of non gm crops and wild plants by gm varieties.



• resistance to pesticides and herbicides of insects and weeds.



• continuous use of herbicides with herbicide tolerant crops leads to serious ecological problems.



• some herbicides effect non target species in the soil such as beneficial predators-spiders, mites, beetles, earthworms, and microfauna and aquatic organisms including fish.



• large scale soyabean monocultures have rendered Amazonian soils unusable. In Bolivia in many areas soils are compacted and suffering severe degradation. In Argentina intensive soybean cultivation has led to soil nutrient depletion.



• The obliteration of traditional crops and horticulture by corporate farming has led to detrimental health effects on local communities, caused by vitamin deficiencies. Eg. monocultural rice, or maize growth (in Latin America) for export as cattle feed is a prime cause of vitamin A deficiency which leads to blindness.



• there are serious legal consequences for farmers regarding contracts that control farming methods and future use, seed purity and its saving for home use, food contamination, the intrusion into non gm crops and wild plants of gm varieties, and the difficulty in obtaining insurance cover should any harm result.


• (The following extract is from "GM soya Disaster in Latin America" by Prof. Walter A Pengue, Univ.of Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Prof.Miguel A. Altieri, Univ. of California, Berkley.)....

...."In Brazil soybean cultivation displaces eleven agricultural workers for every one who finds employment in the sector"........."In Argentina.....in 1998 there were 422000 farms in Argentina while in 2002 there were only 318,000, a reduction of a quarter. In one decade soybean area increased 126% at the expense of dairy, maize, wheat and fruit production............For the biotech industry huge increases in the soybean area cultivated and a more than doubling of yields per unit area are an economic and agronomic success. For the country, that means more imports of basic foods, therefore loss of food sovereignty, and for poor small and consumers increased food prices and more hunger.

This brings us back to the GM corporate pronouncement that "anti-GM campaigners are committing a crime against humanity"....a claim made no doubt to deflect from their own blatant exploitation of farmers and consumers.

It isn't just that GM crops act parasitically on the soil and wildlife and the environment. GM's are a parasite on the health and livlihoods of farmers and local populations in many parts of the world. At the most extreme there are suicides among Indian farmers, resulting from the increased seed costs and reduced yields.

Thankfully some communities, eg in Ethiopia have been able to resist the domineering influence of the corporates. They tried growing imported seeds and noticed the detrimental health effects on children. They also recognized that it was easier to mill and cook wheat which was grown from their indigenous seed varieties. The effect on digestion was also noticed to be better after consuming the traditional varieties. And last but not least the crop yields were higher! Happily farmers and local communities are collaborating with their seed scientists to return to growing and improving their traditional seed varieties.

In his article "Feeding People is Easy" Colin Tudge concludes....."In reality then our food problems are of two kinds. The first is to grow food well, get it to people and then cook it properly. That should be straight forward. Far, far harder is to circumvent the corporates and their attendant governments. New Labour has applied the same general strategy to food as to all things: to sell off the assets to the highest bidders and to hand the reins and profits to the corporates, which in this case means Tesco, Monsanto and the makers of agrochemicals. The aim is not to grow good food but to maximize cash. That in all ways is immensely destructive. In short the great threat to humanity comes from our own leaders. Now that really is a problem".

In 1998 the EU introduced a moratorium on new biotech authorizations that lasted six years, due to continuing concerns about GM crops.In November 2007, the World Trade Organization gave the EU an extra two months to comply with its ruling for the EU to end restrictions of imports of genetically modified food. The United States, Argentina and Canada argue that their farmers lost money because of GM bans, and they are now threatening to call for WTO sanctions against the EU.

French anti-globalisation activist, Jose Bove, who was convicted of destroying GM crops in southern France has gone on hunger strike to demand a year long embargo.

MEP's vote this week, how sustainable are they?

DEFRA supports the spraying of agricultural pesticides next to residential properties and other buildings such as schools and hospitals. Despite the report of the Royal Commission DEFRA CONTINUES TO SHOW CONTEMPT for the UK residents who are repeatedly exposed to highly toxic chemicals in this way. The European Parliament are voting on new safety policies which will provide more protection for people who live near to sprayed crops.

One very important new regulation in the European Commissions pesticide proposals, would be to introduce buffer zones between sprayed crops and peoples homes.

If you are concerned to protect your health from exposure to agricultural pesticides through inhalation, or skin contact, or water pollution, please contact your MEP's today by email. Please recommend to your MEP that they vote for the Environment Committee's adopted reports which will now all go to plenary to be voted on by all MEP'S.

You can find MEP's names and email addresses on the website http://www.europarl.org.uk/ They vote next week!

Urgent.EU vote on pesticide policy proposals.

1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weeds are now resistant to pesticides.-but humans are not!

Rainwater in parts of Europe contain such high levels of dissolved pesticides it would be illegal to sell it as drinking water.


If these facts are of concern to you, it is not too late to email your MEP today, before he/she votes on the EU pesticide proposals this month!


The pesticide proposals include the following amendments, which you might like to support in your email.,

• the prohibition of pesticide use in 'substantial no spray zones' around residential areas, parks, public gardens, sports grounds, school grounds, playgrounds amongst other places, especially to protect local groups, such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly, those with pre-existing medical conditions and who may be taking medication, along with all other vulnerable groups. The amendment also specified that in all these areas non-chemical alternatives should be used.
• a new legal obligation to inform residents and neighbours about pesticides spraying in their locality.
• a new legal obligation for farmers and other pesticide users to provide information on the pesticides used directly to residents and neighbours.
• a clear definition of a substance of concern being any substance that has or potentially has either carcinogenic, mutagenic, endocrine disrupting, neurotoxic, immunotoxic, reprotoxic, genotoxic or skin sensitizing capabilities should be regarded as a substance of concern.
• the entire terminology used throughout the adopted text of the Regulation proposal, including the title, to be changed from "Plant Protection Products"(PPP's) to pesticides.
• a new definition for the prioritization of non-chemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management (including rotation, physical and mechanical control and natural predator management).

After next year the European Commission plans to abolish set-asides. The reason for this is to make way for the growing of cereals for animal feeds and biofuels. Consequently more land will be sprayed with pesticides, providing no breathing space (literally) for wildlife, and a visually more barren and polluted agricultural landscape for all of us. This makes it even more urgent that large buffer zones be provided between sprayed crops and residential areas.

Biofuels, Agro-fuels,-Myth and Rip-off.

Why are we using precious land
to feed our gas-guzzling cars?

Governments and corporate bodies present agro-fuels as the panacea for the problems of a post peak oil era.

Their bold assertions are myths.

(text in colour are quotes from an article of Eric Holt-Gimenez, Ph.D.Executive Director,Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy)

It is now acknowledged by the scientific community that biofuels are not the magic bullet to the problem of either carbon emmissions or the transition from peak oil to a renewable fuel economy. The industrialized countries are aggressively promoting an agro-fuels boom, through mandating renewable fuel targets. However, these targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the Industrial North. Consequently Northern countries expect the Global South to meet their fuel needs, and most Southern governments seem happy to oblige. Indonesia and Malaysia are rapidly cutting down forests to expand palm-oil plantations targeted to supply up to 20% of the EU bio-diesel market. In Brazil-where bio-fuel crops already occupy an area the size of Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Great Britain combined-the government is planning a five-fold increase in sugar cane acreage with a goal of replacing 10% of the worlds gasoline by 2025.

In Columbia, land-grabbing from local peasants as well as from indigenous and minority groups. Should anyone resist they or members of their family might be made to disappear, by paramilitaries.

For more information on Columbia -see September issue of 'Ecologist' September 2007.

MYTHS-
Myth 1- Agro fuels are clean and green.

Myth 2- Agro-fuels will not result in deforestation.

Myth 3- Agro-fuels will bring rural development.

Myth 4- Agro-fuels will not cause hunger.

Myth 5- Better "second-generation" agro-fuels are just around the corner.

(from foodfirst.org).

Pesticides in Farming, Driven by Supermarkets.

Agri-business, food processors and supermarkets have totally taken over control of our food, from the time it is planted, (or born) to its purchase at the retailers. They have degraded its nutritional value, and contaminated it with chemicals:pesticides and herbicides on crops, and antibiotics and growth hormones in animals. This is before it even reaches the processors where additives and more go into the mix.

This whole process is referred to by its protagonists as 'efficiency' but nothing could be further from the truth! It's simply convenient to the corporates, who centralise control.

Food manufacturers attempt to sqeeze more and more profit from food:..."the increasing 'fractionation' of foodstuffs into smaller and smaller biological components and ingredients and then the recombining of these fractions into 'value-added' retail food products. Such activity has spawned a massive food technology industry whose practitioners have been increasingly involved over the past ten years in 'adding' health 'benefits' to foods and beverages.
..........Corporations are often mainly concerned about sourcing a product with the least cost and then move the product where it can be sold at the highest price. In many poor countries workers in rural areas receive less than five dollars a day, with health and environment regulations unlikely to be enforced, again helping to drive down costs. It is remarkable how cheap labour characterises the supposed 'efficiencies' of the food supply chain. Behind low cost food can be even lower cost labour. Transnational corporations are experts at reaping the economic benefits of globalization while pushing the economic, social and environmental costs onto the public.
........some economists now openly argue that consumers in the developed world no longer need their own farmers because countries can import food from poorer countries more cheaply."*

The alternative to this crazy system is to cut these corporations out of the loop, and for us, the customer/consumer to deal direct with local farmers. This action would also benefit populations in the developing world who should be able to decide about their own food needs and the farming system they want to use.

*Quotes from 'Food Wars', Tim Lang and Michael Heasman.

Organic Farming-Small Farms versus Large Farms.

"Food, Trade And US Power Politics In Latin America." Toni Solo. 2004.

He quotes a statement by Columbian Senator Jorge Robledo Castillo:"A nation whose food supply was located somewhere else in the world stands to lose if for some reason it cannot be made available for domestic consumption......"

Toni Solo points out that "people at all levels across Latin America see this very clearly. A spokesperson for the Movement of Landless Workers in Brazil, states, "The principal base for forging a free, sovereign people is that it has the conditions to produce its own food. If a country becomes dependent on another in order to feed its people it becomes a dependent nation politically, economically, and ideologically."

Solo continues.........."Within the broader concern in Latin America about food sovereignty, anxiety about genetically manipulated foods is acute. Writers like Elizabeth Bravo of Equador's Accion Ecologica, have analized what the FTAA would mean in terms of the ability of the US multinationals like Monsanto and Dupont to penalise local agriculture by enforcing Intellectual Property Rights on plants and seeds through patents and related ownership rights. She argues this will introduce monopoly rights into the food production system, limit the free movement of seeds, increase erosion of genetic resources and force farmers to pay royalties on the seed they use, thus generally increasing food prices.

She goes on to point out that, "even without broaching the the ethical monstrosity of patenting life forms, these attempts to prioratise the agenda of the agribusiness multinationals will lead to monocultivation and eliminate small farmers. Latin America agriculture will become more insecure the more it comes to rely on foreign, especially United States, technology. Looking further afield, one has only to consider a country like Honduras to see where the "free trade" model leads: abject dependency, widespread poverty, massive unemployment"

Farming-Small Farms Produce More.

I provide some quotes below from a policy brief by Peter M Rosset, Ph.D. Executive Director Food First/The Institute for Food and Development. The policy brief was prepared for "Cultivating Our Futures" the FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land,12-17 September1999, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

.."In this policy brief I challenge the conventional wisdom that small farms are backward and unproductive. Using evidence from Southern and Northern countries I demonstrate that small farms are "multi-functional"-more productive, more efficient, andcontribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers can also make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safe-guarding the future sustainability of agricultural production.

....Small Farm Productivity

How many times have we heard that large farms are more productive than small farms? Or that they are more efficient? And that we need to consolidate land holdings to take advantage of that productivity and efficiency? The actual data shows exactly the reverse for productivity: that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms. Part of the problem lies in the confusing language used to compare the performance of different farm sizes. As long as we use crop yield as the measure of productivity, we will be giving an unfair advantage to larger farms.

Total Output versus Yield.

If we are to fairly evaluate the relative productivity of small and large farms, we must discard "yield" as our measurement tool.Yield means the production per unit area of a single crop, like "metric tons of corn per hectare." One can often obtain the highest yield of a single crop by planting it alone on a field--in a monoculture. But while a monoculture may allow for a high yield of one crop, it produces nothing else of use to the farmer. The bare ground between the crop rows..."empty niche space" in ecological terms...invites weed infestation. The presence of weeds makes the farmer invest labour in weeding or capital in herbicide.

Large farmers tend to plant monocultures because they are the simplest to manage with heavy machinary. Small farmers on the other hand, especially in the Third World are much more likely to plant crop mixtures--intercropping---where the empty niche space that would otherwise produce weeds instead is occupied by other crops. Thet also tend to combine or rotate crops and livestock, with manure serving to replenish soil fertility.

Such integrated farming systems produce far more per unit area than do monocultures. Though the yield per unit area of one crop-corn, for example- may be lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture, the total output per unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far, far higher. Therefore if we are to compare large and small farms, we should use 'total output' rather than yield. Total output is the sum of everything a small farm produces: various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, animal products etc. While 'yield' almost always biases the results towards large farms, total output allows us to see the true productivity advantage of small farms.

Surveying the data we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This holds true whether we are talking about an industrial country like the United States, or any country in the Third World.".......

Pesticide Pollution,Farming, the Environment, and Gordon Brown's plans.

This is really about the lack of Gordon Brown's plans for the future of agriculture and the agricultural environment. Given the urgency of the need to create strategies for energy, efficiency and production in all fields(excuse the pun), there is almost a deafening silence from government. There are the occasional suggestions for using low energy light bulbs, but that's about the extent of their creative thinking. Let's have some concerted planning and incentives for really moving away from our dependence on oil!
In relation to farming I wonder if Gordon is going to opt for the environmentally sustainable option, or whether he will cave in to the agri business ,or the GM biotechnology industry.
It's a sobering thought that 75% of the UK is agricultural land and 31,000 tons of pesticides are sprayed on UK land every year......" The toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture has increased by an estimated factor of 10-100-fold since 1975.Despite this, resistence is spreading; POPS (persistant organic pollutants)are becoming less effective: they accumulate in the food chain, persist in the environment and travel by being bioaccumulated (as animals eat each other, so the POP is stored in fat and thus consumed and stored).Pesticides are a key route for POPS,, notably through aldrin, chlordane,DDT, dieldrin, endrin and heptachlor. 1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weeds are now resistant, an environmental impact known as the 'treadmill effect'."
Rain water in parts of Europe contains such high levels of dissolved pesticides it would be illegal to supply it as drinking water.
So, Gordon, what's it to be? Give us a clue.

Text in blue is information taken from 'Food Wars' by Tim Lang and Michael Heasman.

No Synthetic Fertilizers, No Pesticides in Cuban Organic Agriculture.

There is an interesting article by Megan Quinn called 'The Power of Community:How Cuba Survived Peak Oil.' It features on the website of Global Public Media.
I'll just quote a little bit about farming in Cuba, but her article is well worth reading for other aspects of cuban life.

....."Havana, Cuba--At the Organiponico de Alamar, a neighborhood agriculture project, a workers collective runs a large urban farm, a produce market and a restuarant. Hand tools and human labour replace oil-driven machinary. Worm cultivation and composting create productive soil. Drip irrigation conserves water, and the diverse, multi-hued produce provides the community with a rainbow of healthy foods.
In other Havana neighborhoods, lacking enough land for such large projects, residents have installed raised garden beds on parking lots and planted vegetable gardens on their patios and roof tops.
Since the early 1990's an urban agriculture movement has swept through Cuba, putting this capital city of 2.2 million on a path toward sustainability.
A small group of Australians assisted in this grass-roots effort, coming to this Caribbean island nation in 1993 to teach permaculture, a system based on sustainable agriculture which uses far less energy.
This need to bring agriculture into the city began with the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of more than 50% of Cuba's oil imports, much of its food and a percent of its trade economy.Transportation halted, people went hungry and the average Cuban lost 30 pounds.....
....Cubans are also replacing petroleum-fed machinary with oxen, and their urban agriculture reduces food transportation distances. Today an estimated 50% of Havana's vegetables come from inside the city, while in other Cuban towns and cities urban gardens produce from 80% to more than 100% of what they need......"

Please read the rest of the article, it's interesting.

Pesticides versus Set-asides.

Setasides are being scrapped next year to make way for the crazy rush to grow biofuel crops. Biofuel crops are also displacing food crops. Truly crazy in a country as small as Britain.

Setasides are not an escape into bygone times-just the opposite. They have been recognized as vital green arteries for wildlife and biodiversity, which are buffers against the burgeoning pressures of intensive farming and pesticide use. They support a critical eco system for the maintainance of food crops and nature.

Georgina Downs, anti pesticide campaigner, points out that 'despite the increasing costs involved in this process and the decreasing number of active substances on the market, actual consumption and use of pesticides in the EU has not decreased within the last ten years. At the same time, the percentage of food and feed samples where residues of pesticides exceed maximum regulatory limits is not declining, but remains around 5%. In addition,certain pesticides are commonly found in the aquatic environment at concentrations well above the regulatory limit, and there is no sign of any decrease'.

So, I enclose some pictures of fields and wild plants/flowers which are due to disappear forever from Britain.

Farming and Food Supply, Who Owns It?

All the big players are jostling for control of the land and control over how it is farmed. The combined power of agri-business and government has taken away a fundamental human right of the international population to make choices about foods grown in our own nations, geographical regions, and local communities.

They deprive us of choice as to whether we have pesticide residues in our food, or whether our food is genetically modified. Remote corporations tell us that the 'free market' provides consumer choice-but giant corporations have deep pockets and their marketing practices manipulate consumer choice. Supermarkets demand strict 'cosmetic' specifications of colour size and shape of produce from the farmer, which forces the farmer to use even more unnecessary chemicals, harmful to human health and animals and the environment.....Agribusiness refers to this system as 'productive, highly efficient, market focused agriculture.'

Foot and Mouth Disease

With this latest outbreak, hopefully things will be handled more efficiently and more humanely than the previous attempts which I described in my previous posts. When this foot and mouth outbreak is over, the arguments for moving to more sustainable, less intensive farming systems becomes even more important. Even in 2007, it is better to work with nature, rather than trying to squeeze every last drop of economic gain out of an exhausted land. Sustainable systems are undoubtedly the best way forward. DEFRA is responsible for critical decisions which have to be made in agriculture, but what are their priorities?