“It’s time for action”, says Vandana Shiva, who has gathered experts from all over the world to draft a Manifesto that will provide farmers, consumers, activists and civil society organizations with the basic tools to claim their right to healthy food. The publication’s title “Food for Health“, has become the key title for an international campaign, which brings together environmental movements and scientists from all over the world in order to spur the needed paradigm shift for the well-being of the planet and all its living beings.

The need for an informative campaign and an action plan at a global level on the harmful effects of industrial food production on the environment and on our health, is made clear by years of studies, analyses and comparisons which leave no room for further doubt. The current productive model, based on industrial agriculture with high chemical input and large-scale distribution, has failed in terms of its social, cultural and labor objectives. It contributes, in a decisive way, to soil and groundwater pollution by releasing a significant amount of pollutants into the environment, and thus also contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. Food commodities that are put on the market also have low nutritional value, as well as being potentially toxic. The consumption of industrial food increases the risk of disease which, in turn, has a huge impact on the budgets of public health systems worldwide.

The tragic irony is that it is the taxpayers themselves who are bearing the real costs of this productive model, which greatly relies on public funding in order to keep functioning. Indeed, both the money needed to pay subsidies to agribusiness companies, the costs of environmental damage and public health, are taken from the pockets of taxpayers who, in the meantime, are under the illusion that if they keep buying cheap food in supermarkets they are saving money on the food they consume regularly.

“The health of the planet and the health of the people are one,” Vandana Shiva reminds us. It’s time to overcome the reductionist and mechanistic paradigms at the basis of our agriculture and food production models, and reclaim the essential connections necessary for our survival and well-being. The connection between food and health precisely represents one of those broken connections that must be rebuilt. The authors of the Manifesto have presented scientific evidence from their respective fields of expertise and coming to a common conclusion: the production and consumption of industrial food is linked to a wide range of diseases and nutritional deficiencies. This applies, in particular, to those commonly defined as “non-communicable diseases” (NCD), which today cause no less than 70% of deaths worldwide, a total of 40 million deaths per year, out of which 15 million are people under 70. Despite the fact that health emergencies, cancer pandemics, and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s are often interpreted as unfortunate but chance cases, these diseases are clearly associated with people’s eating habits. Is ignoring the influence of environmental factors on our health simply a distraction? Not really, considering the economic interests behind the system of industrial food production.

The aim of the Manifesto is therefore to analyse and connect the state of our planet’s health with that of people, by identifying the main risk factors that require necessary corrective action, along with building the awareness that we are facing epochal systemic challenges.

Indeed, the risks to people’s health are to be looked at in the context of the current industrial economic system, which puts private interests at the centre, and the common good second. This extractivist system bypasses democratic values and aims to maximise profits by outsourcing the real costs to citizens. Thus, the reconstruction of a disintegrated knowledge system, through reconnecting traditional knowledge with new technologies, is the starting point of the Manifesto, which poses potential and immediately feasible alternatives. The defence of biodiversity, the support of local economies and rural production at 0 km, the recovery of traditional cultures and knowledge, the revival of agroecology and the ethical use of new technologies are some of the proposed solutions contained in the Manifesto.

The evidence revealed by these data requires that anyone who is concerned about the present and future of our planet along with its inhabitants, must mobilise and demand that governments undertake radical changes in the current economic, productive and distribution systems. The “Food for Health” Manifesto is meant to serve as a reference tool to relaunch and reclaim the rights of the planet, and all its life-forms, to transform the food production systems that are responsible for the current environmental and health degradation, into healthy systems capable of generating well-being. As Vincenzo Migaleddu, former president of ISDE Sardinia (International Society of Doctors for the Environment), affirmed: “the right to health is the right to a healthy life, not the right to be cured.”

A broken economic system

There is something profoundly wrong when an economic system, based on the mantra of increasing production at all costs, not only fails to achieve its promised result, but also produces side effects of unprecedented severity, the costs of which are externalized to governments and its taxpayers. The Green Revolution was supposed to solve the global food problem through industrialization of the agricultural sector, but this has only been a broken promise. Now, these are not just the words of civil society organizations, but also of the FAO itself, who just a few years ago acted as one of the main proponents of the Green Revolution.

The evidence is now clear for all to see, including the FAO’s Director General, Graziano da Silva, who closed the recent Symposium on Agroecology held in Rome, by stating that, “We have reached the limit of the paradigm of the Green Revolution,” and that, “We cannot continue to produce food in the same way we have, relying on intensive farm techniques, chemical inputs and mechanization, and we need to shift to a more holistic approach on sustainability.” According to the FAO’s Director General, the Green Revolution has not been able to solve the issue of global hunger, as      in 2016, 815 million people are still suffering from hunger globally. This figure is accompanied by two other important points: in the same year, almost two billion people were overweight, while 650 million were obese. The mantra of productivity at all costs, stressed again Graziano Da Silva, has come with an unsustainable cost from an environmental point of view, because of the massive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that have contributed to soil contamination, pollution of aquifers, and loss of biodiversity.

It is then clear that this issue goes beyond production data, considering that most of the food we eat is still produced by small and medium-sized farms, while the vast majority of industrial crops, such as maize and soy, are mainly used as animal feed or to produce biofuels.

Economic globalization and industrialization have, therefore, not solved the issue of world hunger, but have rather increased waste. As confirmed by the FAO, about a quarter of the food produced, 1.3 billion tons, is lost along production chains.

The relentless increase in production, much to the detriment of the environment and food quality, has not only failed to solve the existing problems, it has also created new ones. It is clear that the real issue revolves around distribution and access to food, as Nadia El Hage, researcher at FAO and one of the authors of the Manifesto, points out. “The real problem,” explains El Hage, “is that people do not have access to the resources they need to buy or produce food: in Asia, for example, there is enough food for the entire population – and Asian countries are even exporting food – yet there are still many people who face hunger. We must recognize that there is a problem of justice in the food system.”

The “Food for Health” Manifesto pushes it further, by directly challenging the agribusiness multinationals engaged in taking over more and more arable land. Their goal is to increase production and extend their control over the agricultural sector through the acquisition of seed patents, monopoly on crops and price control. An extractive model where food is no longer human heritage, but instead a commodity or tool aimed at creating monopolies which does not take into account the nutritional, cultural and social value of food. The recent investigations, known as the “Monsanto Papers” and the “Poison Papers” have brought to light the strategies implemented by the major agrochemical groups to expand their empire: from lobbying actions, to interference in governmental agencies’ proceedings, to mega mergers and acquisitions, and – in collusion with institutions – attacks directed against independent science.

This could not be any other way, considering the evident unsustainability of the industrial agricultural model, which can no longer hide its real costs to the environment and society. Industrial agricultural production requires high energy inputs and contributes significantly to climate change by accounting for 29% of all greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Intensive, highly polluting factory farming, which covers 70% of agricultural land and 30% of the total surface area of the planet, is also included in the calculation. The use of fertilizers and pesticides is also causing extremely costly side effects. The use of chemicals is depriving the soil of its natural nutrients, while at least 210 new species of super weeds have developed resistance to herbicides.

What, then, are the real costs of this global productive system- the costs which we don’t see on our receipt when we check-out at the supermarket? The group of experts who drafted the Manifesto have compared some of the most significant data from all over the world and have come to the conclusion: even from an economic point of view, the current productive system – based on industrial agriculture – is not sustainable. For example, in the United States, one of the largest consumers of agrotoxic products in the world, the environmental and public health costs resulting from the use of pesticides in the 90s, amounted to 8.1 billion dollars a year, compared to an annual expenditure of 4 billion for the purchase of agricultural chemicals. In short, for every dollar spent to buy pesticides, an additional two dollars were spent to deal with the damage caused by their use. This estimate is similar to the results of a survey, published in Brazil in 2012, on cases of acute pesticide poisoning in the State of Paraná. The total health costs for the Brazilian State amounted to 149 million dollars each year, meaning an expense of 1.28 dollars for every dollar spent in the purchase of pesticides.

As far as Europe is concerned, the damage caused by pesticides has cost the public health system over 190 billion euros. But this is a conservative estimate, considering that only cognitive deficits, which are secondary effects of exposure to organophosphorus pesticides, are taken into account and that not all EU countries are aligned in their assessments. This is the case in France which, as early as 2012, recognised the link between Parkinson’s disease and exposure to pesticides. The link was confirmed by a recent study of the Canadian University of Guelph, that has classified the disease as an occupational disease affecting farmers.

That’s a partial but already salacious bill that multinationals lay directly at our doorstep, preferring, in the meantime, to calculate the millions in dividends they have accumulated by plundering the planet’s resources. We are talking about huge damages that would render the industrial production model unsustainable if the costs were not systematically externalized.

Clearly, when we buy in supermarkets, the high environmental and human health costs are not reflected in the listed price, fuelling the illusion that we are saving money. While in actuality, industrial agriculture is generating fortunes for manufacturing companies and its shareholders and certainly not for those of the planet and its inhabitants.

The industrial agricultural sector can be defined as one of the principal actors of “predatory globalization” which prefers to be based on the efficiency of capital, rather than on people’s well-being. First of all, this is a political issue, considering that industrial food is produced at high costs, because of public subsidies, and is marketed internationally through the so-called “free trade treaties”. Local markets, flooded with cheap junk food, lose their suppliers and farmers who, under the pressure of a contrived productive system, are forced to abandon their land.

This is the noose that each day tightens more and more around the necks of farmers who, confronted with the interests of big agribusiness, are no longer in a position to produce healthy food, thereby leaving consumers without the possibility of choosing their diet.

Damaging biodiversity means damaging ourselves

In order to understand how harmful the system of industrial agricultural production is to people’s health, it is essential to make reference to the concept that inspired the drafting of the Manifesto. The health of people and the health of the planet must be considered as one. Human beings cannot and must not think of themselves as separated entities, with respect to the planet they live. This ancient wisdom was already held by the Greeks, as demonstrated by the maxim of Hippocrates, the most famous physician in history, who invited his patients to consider food as the true and only medicine. A teaching that is also found in Ayurveda, the science (Veda) of life (Ayur), centered on food.

Indian farmers have practiced ecological agriculture for 10,000 years, based on soil care, biodiversity intensification and the “Law of Return“. These ancient practices were based on multiple scientific and ecological principles that upheld the laws of nature and social welfare.

This knowledge – acquired over thousands of years – has not, however, prevented the imposition of a productive model based on diametrically opposed principles. When it comes to exposing the damage that an industrial productive system based on intensive monocultures does to the planet’s biodiversity, it is necessary to understand to what extent human beings are part of that same biodiversity and how much they share the risks. It is no coincidence that more and more researchers are focusing on the relationship between the loss of biodiversity and the increase of inflammatory diseases. The decline in our immune system’s ability to properly function is associated with the state of health of our microbiome, which is the system of bacteria, viruses, fungi, yeasts and protozoa that are part of our intestines. Also called by scientists our “second brain”. It performs a number of important functions that significantly contribute to the health of our immune system. A poor functioning microbiome, or its lack of diversity, entails greater risks of developing various neuropsychiatric disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, autism, anxiety. In addition to this, recent research has confirmed that the composition and diversity of the microbiome is very important in determining anti-tumor immunity. The fact that the human microbiome is in distress is confirmed by a practice that is becoming rapidly widespread in medical circles: namely the transplantation of faeces, aimed at transferring a healthy microbiome into a patient whose microbiome is no longer functional.

So, the importance of the microbiome for human health is established, but how do we cultivate a healthy microbiome? The good news is that we are responsible for the good health of our microbiome, which is not genetically inherited, but rather affected by environmental factors in its formation. That is why researchers agree with the assertion that food diversity is of crucial importance for a healthy microbiome.

Alas, it is precisely at this stage that there is bad news. Modern “market-imposed” diets are in fact loaded with unhealthy ingredients such as sugars and fats, while diversity seems to be ruled out by a standardization process that, once again, works in the interests of the market rather than the health of the consumer. As Salvatore Ceccarelli, international expert in Agronomy and Plant Genetics, and one of the authors of the Manifesto, explains: “How can we have a diet based on diversity, if 60% of our calories come from just three plant species, ie wheat, rice and corn? And how can we have a diet based on diversity, if almost all the food we eat is produced from seed varieties that, in order to be legally traded, must be registered in a catalogue that is called register of varieties, and that, in order to be recorded in this register, must be uniform, stable and recognizable? Between the need to eat ‘diverse’ foods discussed so far, and the uniformity in food products required by laws on crops, there is a clear contradiction.”

Industrial agriculture not only limits the varieties of food, but also places large quantities of food with very low nutritional value on the market. “The food that is being put on the market today,” notes Nadia El Hage, “is not of the same quality as before the Second World War; compared to more than 60 years ago, most crops have lost, on average, almost 20% of nutrients with peaks of up to 70 or 90%.”

The food we consume is therefore increasingly nutritionally deficient and potentially harmful to human health as a result of the large quantities of pesticides and chemical fertilizers used in the productive process. “This non-ecological approach to food production”, the Manifesto reports, “coupled with unhealthy food processing and commercially obsessed manipulative marketing practices, has created propulsive pathways for disruptive diets that produce ill health. The food processing phase also appears particularly delicate, considering the addition of large amounts of chemicals.”

Food transformation is a process that accounts for about three-quarters of all international food sales. Healthy substances, such as vitamins, are generally removed and large amounts of sugars and fats, preservatives, organic solvents, hormones, colouring agents, flavour enhancers and other food additives are normally added, especially when the food has to travel thousands of kilometres and must be processed to increase its shelf-life. The effects of these additives are often unknown, while their interactions with other substances present in food have not yet been identified.

The authors of the Manifesto affirm that these types of diets, rich in calories but poor in fibers and nutrients, together with high fats, sugar and salt intake are associated with a large part of NCDs, caused by biological risk factors such as: high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high blood lipids and body fat, which in turn trigger pathological processes of inflammation, atherosclerosis of blood vessels, thrombosis and induce carcinogenesis through epigenetic effects. To continue along this path, the Manifesto concludes, is to be considered “immorally indefensible” and in a final analysis, could not be defined in other words if not as a failure of our civilization.

Pesticides: these unknown

At this point, a question arises spontaneously: when we buy and consume industrial food on a daily basis, are we actually feeding ourselves or are we rather poisoning ourselves? And above all, are we really informed about the origin and content of the food we eat and therefore free to choose what is best for our health?

Unfortunately, the choice is not just up to us. On the contrary, in many cases, our choices are influenced by incorrect or partial information that does not make explicit what the risks associated with poor nutrition are. Providing information about the actual risks and putting the choice in the hands of consumers and farmers are some of the main objectives of the “Food for Health” Manifesto.

The issue of pesticides is emblematic because not everyone is aware of their harmful effects on the environment and human health. Yet this is no breaking news. As early as 2006, the scientific journal The Lancet published a list of 202 toxic substances, including 90 pesticides, which are particularly dangerous because of their potential negative effects on the human brain. Subsequent research has confirmed the risks associated with the use of agrotoxins for the human body as they can induce multiple and complex dysfunctions in all organs and systems, thus leading to endocrine, nervous, immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, reproductive and renal diseases. Pesticides can come into contact with people in different ways, through the air or by direct skin contact, but the greatest exposure occurs through what we eat and drink. This is a risk for adults and children, but also for infants who are indirectly exposed to dangerous chemicals through the placenta or by breastfeeding. It has been observed that for children in particular, there is a greater chance of cognitive impairment and an increased risk of contracting cancer, especially leukaemia and lymphoma, when exposed to these chemicals.

In short, it seems that the time has come for us to use the extensive scientific literature in our possession to expose a toxic production system and call for an immediate paradigm shift, as Patrizia Gentilini, member of ISDE Scientific Committee (International Society of Doctors for the Environment) and one of the authors of the Manifesto, argues: “The time has come to stop lying to workers and citizens, and stop claiming that cancer is caused by mere fortuity; our studies show that cancer is caused by environmental factors, and that pesticides increase the risk of contracting it.” Although health risks are very high, they are also little known, when we consider the absence of any kind of biomonitoring on our territory. And it is not only about cancer: “There is now evidence of a strong correlation,” adds Dr. Gentilini, “between exposure to pesticides and the constant increase in diseases such as cancer, respiratory diseases, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), autism, attention deficit and hyperactivity, diabetes, infertility, reproductive disorders, foetal malformations, metabolic and thyroid dysfunctions.”

One of the main warnings raised by the scientist, is that pesticides behave as endocrine disruptors. “Concerning endocrine disruptors and carcinogens,” Gentilini stresses again, “there are no safety limits.” Therefore, the so-called “safety thresholds” seem to have no value, as confirmed by the latest report of the Ramazzini Institute that shows how glyphosate, the active ingredient of some of the most widespread pesticides used in agriculture, is still toxic even at the so-called “safe” doses. Glyphosate-based pesticides, regardless of dose and exposure time, can alter some important biological parameters, in particular, sexual development, genotoxicity and the intestinal microbiome.

There are therefore no “safety thresholds” when it comes to pesticides which, even at low concentrations, can cause serious damage to human health. But the risks are not limited to the individual substances that are released into the environment. Pesticides that can be purchased on the market are in fact composed of both an active ingredient and its adjuvants which, in many cases, are even more dangerous than the active ingredient declared by the manufacturers. It is essential to point out that the current toxicological assessments only cover the active substance declared by the manufacturer. The toxicity of the adjuvants, including preservatives, thinners, emulsifiers, and propellants are likely to increase the toxicity of the product and are not taken into account by the competent authorities. They usually base their evaluations exclusively on the documentation made available by the manufacturer, without carrying out any adequate independent testing. What the institutions responsible for the control and authorization of hazardous substances do not consider, or do not want to consider, is the so-called cocktail effect, i.e. the interaction among the various chemical substances already present in the environment, as well as within the individual product placed on the market.

The result of this “scientific” authorisation procedure is easily ascertained: the consumer, who trusts the institutions in charge of controls, and who is unaware of the flaws of the current authorisation procedures, is led to consider the final product placed on the market as safe. A real sleight of hand, therefore, where reality is hidden behind reassuring labels that contain partial and inaccurate information. A dangerous game where we have unconsciously placed the most risky of bets: our own health.

Between propaganda and false myths: the poison is served 

Is the current massive use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides really necessary to increase production? Is it indispensable to feed the growing world population or is it instead beneficial only to the interests of big agribusiness corporations? There is extensive literature available that exposes how manufacturers feed propaganda to continue to sell their products, notwithstanding the fact that they are harmful. Advertising, as we know, is pervasive and convincing, certainly more than the body of scientific literature that has been dealing extensively with the actual effects of agrotoxins on the environment and on human beings. In order to shed some clarity on the subject, it is sufficient to consult the latest UN reports, starting with the contribution of Hilal Helver, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, and among the authors of the Manifesto. According to Helver, the problem of world hunger is related more to poverty, inequity and food distribution, rather than to production. Moreover, Elver has denounced the indiscriminate use of pesticides as it is directly related to 20,000 deaths from poisoning, a year, worldwide. Along the same lines, according to the estimates of the WHO and UNEP, there are at least 26 million cases of pesticide poisoning in the world every year that, in many cases, lead to death.

These figures are worrying but not surprising, considering the fact that chemicals cover the entire food supply chain, from field to table, where they are present not only in fruit and vegetables but also in meat, fish and dairy products. Indeed, exposure to pesticides can occur in many ways, including direct exposure, particularly among workers involved in pesticide production, sellers and farmers who apply them in the fields. The processing stage is also responsible for the contamination of our food with plastics, preservatives, organic solvents, hormones, flavour enhancers and other food additives introduced into the food at this stage. 

Exposure also occurs through residues in surface water from agricultural runoff, contamination of wells and groundwater, and wind dispersion from aerial spraying. In short, you don’t have to live only a few meters away from an intensive monoculture farm to start worrying, as confirmed by a recent pilot study on soil contamination, conducted by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission and the University of Wageningen. According to the study, traces of pesticides were found in more than 66% of the samples analyzed. The most commonly detected substances are glyphosate (46%), DDT (25%) and fungicide products (24%) which, it is noted, can be concentrated in very small soil particles, which are easily eroded and transported by wind and water, carrying the risk of contamination even over long distances.

These data seem to be confirmed by the latest National Report on pesticides in waters by ISPRA, the Italian Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, which detected approximately 259 different toxic pesticides in Italian waters. Pesticide residues were found in 67% of monitored surface water and in 33.5% of groundwater, with an increasing trend compared to the same survey performed in 2003. According to ISPRA, glyphosate, together with its metabolite AMPA, is the most present herbicide in Italian waters: both substances, as recorded in the ISPRA report, are higher than the value allowed by the regulation on environmental quality standards for water (EQS) at 24.5% and 47.8% of the monitored sites for surface water, respectively.

Even if it is true that agrotoxic spraying in Italy exceeds 5 kg per hectare – the highest percentage in the EU – it should be noted that the Italian data do not differ much from those of the rest of the world. Among the largest consumers of pesticides in the world is China, with 1,806,000 tons per year, followed by the United States with 386,000 tons per year, Argentina at 265,000 tons, Thailand at 87,000 tons, Brazil at 76,000 tons,. While Canada, with which the European Union has recently signed the controversial CETA trade treaty, stands out with about 54,000 tons per year. In this special ranking, Italy stands at a prominent position with 63,000 tons per year, more than the annual consumption of India, at 40,000 tons.

Source: World Atlas

According to the latest FAO and IWMI report, More People, More Food, Worse Water? A Global Review of Water Pollution from Agriculture, industrial agriculture is the primary contributor of groundwater pollution in the world. The report confirms how the massive use of pesticides and fertilizers contributes to the contamination of groundwater, endangering human health and that of the planet. In fact, industrial agriculture is responsible for 96% of ammonia emissions into the air which, reacting with other pollutants, produces a very dangerous fine particulate matter. In short, this should be enough to change the productive model immediately and yet, the introduction of dangerous substances into the environment does not seem to stop. On the contrary, according to the FAO report, the use of fertilizers is destined to increase by 58% by 2050. This is not good news, considering that today 4.6 million tons of chemical pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, are spread annually on agricultural soils, and that at a global level, every 27 seconds a new chemical is synthesized. Beyond myths and corporate propaganda, the results of scientific analysis from laboratories all over the world seem to agree across the board, confirming the urgency expressed in the Manifesto: that we cannot have any more poisons on our tables.

It’s time to switch production models towards a healthy, poison-free diet 

In the area of good nutrition, how important are personal choices in living a healthy life? They are certainly very important, but it must be recognised that we are not always free to make the right choices. Our choices are conditioned by many external factors which actually make them less free than we might think. The processes of food standardization, along with aggressive marketing, misinformation, lack of transparency in the supply chain, as well as the available market supply and price policies imposed by oligopolies, are some of the factors that condition our ability to choose freely. For this reason, the “Food for Health” Manifesto is not only directed to individual producers and consumers but also to governments, which are responsible for the welfare of their citizens and are custodians of their rights. Cooperation between citizens, farmers, universities, researchers and institutions appears to be an essential element for a paradigm shift.

An urgent transformation without compromises is necessary, as Patrizia Gentilini points out: “We can protect our health through the food we consume and by having access to healthy food, rich in all those nutrients and substances which protect our health and, as much as possible, free from dangerous residues, be it environmental contaminants, or residues from chemical agriculture, especially pesticides. The time has come for us to change the agriculture model and, as we always stress, talking about sustainable use of pesticides is an oxymoron, because pesticides are poisonous and toxic substances, designed and studied to cause damage to other forms of life and therefore they are obviously dangerous for us too.”

The extractive, polluting and linear production system must then primarily be replaced by a circular economy that respects people’s rights and the environment. Our own planet works in a circular way and could soon be brought to exhaustion should the current linear production system not be reversed. Many good practices have already been tested and they show that alternatives do exist and can be put in place, regardless of the political will. This is the case with short supply chain production systems and zero km farmer’s markets that have demonstrated viable solutions to food waste, greenhouse gas emissions, ecological footprints and wealth disparities. Small and medium local producers can also play a major role in the conservation of biodiversity, and thus in enriching our diets, by conserving indigenous seed varieties and protecting them from agricultural markets flooded with expensive seeds owned by multinationals.

Supranational organisations can also play a key role in stimulating change. This is the case of FAO, which has recently recognized that agroecology contributes directly to some of the most important Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including ending poverty and hunger, ensuring quality education, achieving gender equality, increasing the efficiency of water use, promoting the creation of decent jobs, ensuring sustainable consumption and production, strengthening climate resilience, ensuring the security and sustainable use of marine resources and safeguarding biodiversity.

Agroecology, intended as a vision of life based on the concept of integration between mankind and nature, can give impetus to a new productive model that preserves biodiversity and promotes environmental sustainability: “The FAO,” stressed Ruchi Shroff, Navdanya International’s director, “has recognized the importance of farmers’ traditional knowledge and the crucial role they play on the front of food security. What small producers and consumers must reclaim is a new agricultural and economic paradigm, a culture of food for health, wherein which ecological responsibility and economic justice take precedence over today’s consumption and profit-based extractive productive systems.”

It is therefore time to enter a phase of transition from an industrial agricultural model based on competition, to a regenerative ecological model based on cooperation and ethical use of new technologies. In the unmasking of the economic interests which manipulate knowledge and science in order to hide the real costs of their activities and extend market control, our food and therefore our health, is only the first step needed if we want to rebuild a knowledge system based on the defence of biodiversity and the common good. This is an epochal and necessary step to reclaim our democratic rights and stop the drift that is threatening to bring the entire planet to collapse. The “Food for Health” Manifesto is a reference tool for all agriculture and food stakeholders and for ordinary citizens who want to be informed by understanding the real interests behind current food production policies, and finally engage directly in a civil movement for a paradigm shift based on the rights of the environment and human beings. Because, as Vandana Shiva so fondly recalls, “the health of people and the health of the planet are one in the same.”

By Manlio Masucci, Navdanya International 

Translation kindly provided by Arianna Porrone and the Navdanya International Team

The original article was first published in Italian in  Terra Nuova magazine, September 2018

On International Earth Day, over 600 organizations from more than 50 countries have launched a world-wide call for a new start in the name of environmental sustainability and social justice. The lockdown, due to the coronavirus, must be used as an opportunity to reflect on the current state of planetary degradation, demand the activists. A state caused by an economic system based on the indiscriminate exploitation of Earth’s resources.

A global coalition

The current pandemic must, therefore, lead us to reflect on the consequences and risks we are facing if we continue the current race toward deforestation and biodiversity loss. This was the request signed by international figures such as Vandana Shiva – president of Navdanya International, Adolfo Perez Esquivel- Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Maude Barlow- president of the council of Canadians. As well as international organizations such as Argentinian Naturaleza de Derechos, Health of Mother Earth Foundation from Nigeria, IFOAM, Via Organica, and ISDE– International Society of Doctors for the Environment.

The signatories stress the devastating role of industrial agricultural production on the environment which has triggered land grabbing for plantations and livestock farming, creating ideal conditions for the spread of new epidemics.

Returning to the Earth

Chemically intensive monocultures and intensive livestock farming contribute to the health crisis by debilitating our immune systems, making us more exposed to new diseases: “As we invade forest ecosystems, destroy the habitats of species and manipulate plants and animals for profits, we create ideal conditions for the outbreak of new disease epidemics. Over the past 50 years, up to 300 new pathogens have emerged.

It is well documented that around 70 per cent of the human pathogens, including HIV, Ebola, Influenza, MERS, and SARS emerged when the forest ecosystems were invaded, and viruses jumped from animals to humans. When animals are cramped in factory farms for profit maximisation, new diseases like swine flu and bird flu appear and spread”.

The health emergency that the coronavirus is waking us up to is connected to the emergency of the extinction and disappearance of species, and it is connected to the climate emergency. All emergencies are rooted in a mechanistic, militaristic, anthropocentric worldview of humans as separate from and superior to other beings whom we can own, manipulate, and control. It is also rooted in an economic model based on the illusion of limitless growth and limitless greed which systematically violates planetary boundaries, as well as ecosystem and species integrity. Localisation of biodiverse agriculture and food systems grow health and reduce the ecological footprint. Localization leaves space for diverse species, diverse cultures and diverse local, living economies to thrive. Biodiversity richness in our forests, our farms, our food, our gut microbiome make the planet, her diverse species, including humans, healthier and more resilient to pests and diseases. — Vandana Shiva

A call for an ecological transition

This alternative to our current system isn’t a fantasy out of reach, as the many grassroots and bottom-up experiences spread throughout the world show us. Such experiences such as local production, urban gardens, agroecology, and circular economy, are already being field tested and are showing they’re more likely to ensure food sovereignty and resilience to climate change in the near future. In order to truly facilitate this transition, as the signatories of the international appeal conclude, the political will be necessary to stop flooding unsustainable sectors with huge amounts of public subsidies. And, instead, help support these ecological movements in order to build a more sustainable future.

From India to the rest of the world, corporations are trying to extend control over the first link of our food chain. Navdanya seed banks were created to protect biodiversity threatened by high chemical input monocultures promoted by the Green Revolution.

It’s probably the most important place on the farm, as everything, indeed, comes from there. From the seeds, and the need to protect them, care for them, preserve them and make them freely available to the farmers. Navdanya’s seed bank stands at the end of the cultivated fields of the Dehradun farm, on the bottom slopes of the Himalayas. A place restored to biodiversity, which preserves thousands of years of rural wisdom. Corporations, whose goal is to take control of seeds, are not far away, just beyond its fences. Thousands, if not millions, of plant varieties have disappeared in the last few decades following the launch of the Green Revolution, while more and more farmers are dependent on seeds protected by intellectual property rights. And the threat continues as the appropriation strategies of multinationals continue to be refined.

The centre for the conservation of biodiversity in Dehradun is also a symbolic place of resistance, able to reproduce itself throughout India: there are more than one hundred seed banks that Navdanya has helped to open, throughout the country. But India is only one of the most obvious examples of the ongoing global war between multinationals, and small and medium-sized agro-ecological farms. Throughout the world, corporations are in fact on the warpath to take more and more market shares. Starting, not surprisingly, with seeds, the first link in the food chain. An offensive justified by the concern of not being able to continue with business as usual. The big agribusiness companies, despite the huge economic power and influence they hold, are in fact losing ground on many fronts: on that of consumers’ trust which, in spite of the great subsidies to the conventional, continues to turn dangerously towards organic; on that of independent science, which continues to enumerate the risks of junk food to human health; on that of economists, who denounce how the hidden costs of large industrial production inevitably falls on communities; and on that of climate change, with climatologists pointing to industrial agriculture as one of the main causes of global warming.

The transition is therefore wide and growing, but bodies and institutions still seem to be anchored to old production models, in spite of their failure. This has also been demonstrated and certified by the United Nations, as well as through the initiatives of many local governments, who are ready to reclaim the food sovereignty which was lost to the global market network. The way in which we produce, distribute and consume food, starting with the seeds from which everything originates, also then becomes a question of democratic rights to health and food sovereignty, and the principles of subsidiarity and precaution. And precisely from a seed, emphasizes the founder of Navdanya, Vandana Shiva, democracy grows from the bottom up, like every living thing.

Uniformity and monopoly: the show must go on

Ensuring seed control and imposing the mantra of uniformity to facilitate the expansion of intensive monocultures is the main strategy of the world’s large seed conglomerates. Achieving the objective of turnover growth cannot, by nature of the corporations themselves, be hindered by ancillary environmental or social considerations. The principle of uniformity, necessary for the success of the agro-industrial model of monocultures, however, comes into immediate conflict with the principles of biodiversity. The results of which are there for all to see. Even those of international bodies such as the FAO, which recently certified both the failure of the Green Revolution, and the biodiversity emergency on our planet, with 75% of plant genetic diversity disappearing in just one hundred years. From the original ten thousand species, we now grown just over 150 and the vast majority of mankind feeds on no more than twelve plant species. This is coupled with a consequent loss of nutrients in the food we consume.

The principle of uniformity, applied in the breeding of the seeds that generate our food, has an impact not only on the health of the planet, but also on the health of human beings, as pointed out by the geneticist Salvatore Ceccarelli, in the Manifesto Food for Health. The diversity of our diet is in fact very important for our health. “And here the problems begin. How can we have a diversified diet if 60% of our calories come from just three crops, namely wheat, rice and maize? And how do we diversify our food if almost all the food we eat is produced from varieties that, to be legally marketed – for their products to be legally found in supermarkets – must be registered in a catalogue called a varietal register, and that to be registered they should be uniform, stable and distinct? If our health depends on the diversity and composition of the microbiome, which in turn depends on the diversity of the diet, how can we have a diversified diet if the agriculture that produces our food is based on uniformity?”

Questions to which the answer seems obvious, considering that it is precisely modern breeding methods that have contributed to the decrease in the number of crops, contributed to the decrease of the number of crops with only about 30 plant species supplying 95% of the global demand for food and with the four biggest staple crops (wheat, rice, maize and potato) taking the lion’s share. A vicious cycle is artfully triggered as less biodiversity means a hindering of the ecological functions of renewing soil fertility, and controlling pests and weeds, leading to a higher dependence on chemicals. The monoculture, typical of industrial agriculture, is strictly connected with the use of an increasing need of agro-chemicals, especially fertilisers and pesticides.

It is then easy to understand why the multinationals in this sector are so interested in imposing their intellectual property rights on farmers, getting rid of all those traditional varieties that do not represent, from their point of view, the value of biodiversity, but rather an inconvenient competitor in the market.

According to FAO, the greatest contribution to biodiversity loss is caused by industrial agriculture, deforestation and other excesses of the globalized, industrialized food system, which, in turn, also contribute to climate change. As a result, the FAO has expressly rejected the dictates of the Green Revolution, calling for a new impetus to agroecological practices. It is now established, in fact, that small farmers are proportionally more productive than large industrial companies, with a production equivalent to 70% of the world’s food, while the allegedly higher yield of industrial agriculture requires ten times more inputs in terms of energy compared to what it subsequently produces in terms of food. The United Nations General Assembly itself has declared that the decade between 2021 and 2030 must be dedicated to the regeneration of ecosystems and has issued a call for global action.

However, multinationals do not seem interested in following such appeals. On the contrary, the race for resources and the creation of monopolies seems unwilling to stop. In 2016, 55% of the world seed market, worth billions of dollars, was in the hands of five large multinationals (compared to 10% in 1985), some of which simultaneously control another multi-billion dollar market, that of pesticides. Recent mergers have further aggravated the picture. Syngenta and ChemChina merged for $43 billion, Dow Chemical (formerly Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal industrial disaster in which over 20,000 people lost their lives) merged with Dupont for $122 billion to form Corteva, while Bayer acquired Monsanto for $66 billion. To date, four companies control more than 60% of the global seed market and 70% of the agrochemicals and pesticides market. This concentration is historically unprecedented and inhibits the emergence of sustainable alternative agricultural models, diversified seed supply and trade systems. The Seed Freedom campaign was launched by Navdanya precisely with the aim of countering the overwhelming power of multinationals by creating an international alliance for the defence of the right to preserve and freely exchange open pollinated, non-GMO seeds.

–

Conserving, protecting and breeding

Entering the seed bank of Navdanya is like entering a place of resistance and political action. It is the farmers themselves, who master seed saving, and who proudly show the result of their daily battles.

Battles which continue on to this day, not only as a response to the attacks of corporations who wipe out such well-preserved traditional practices by taking farmers’ resources, but also as a way to show an existing and viable alternative for a fair and sustainable future.

The Navdanya Biodiversity Conservation Farm was founded in 1995 with the aim of preserving biodiversity and teaching agroecological practices to students and farmers from all over the world. Over the last 30 years Navdanya’s research in the field of ecological and biodiverse agriculture has shown that agroecology can improve nutrition and health, increase small farmers’ income and, at the same time, regenerate the soil, water and biodiversity, thus improving climate resilience. Navdanya’s training programmes have reached more than five million farmers, at least one million of whom are actually practicing organic farming, while 124 community seed banks have been implemented throughout India. These centres enable farmers to free themselves from the dependency of having to buy expensive, unreliable and nutritionally empty commercial seeds, while providing support in the conservation of climate resilient varieties.

–

It is, in all respects, a path of resistance and reclamation, which has been taken in response to the rise of corporations that have made India one of their chosen lands of conquest. Reconquering food sovereignty through the regeneration of biodiversity is the first step in tackling the devastation caused by the advent of intensive monocultures. To understand the impact of the Green Revolution on India’s biodiversity, it is enough to analyse what happened to one of the continent’s primary crops, rice. Over 200,000 varieties of rice have almost completely disappeared. A proper massacre of varieties which occurred in the name of uniformity, which allowed corporations to extend almost complete control over the market. Navdanya has managed to save about 4,000 varieties of rice throughout India, 1,500 of which are conserved in the seed bank in Dehradun.

From this point of view, India represents one of the favourite areas, on a global level, for agribusiness Resistance against so called ‘biopiracy attacks’ have been ongoing in this part of the world for the last twenty-five years. Ever since Vandana Shiva challenged and defeated in international courts, powerful corporations’ attempt to patent the traditional Neem plant.

This battle was won as part of a permanent, ongoing war. In 1998, Navdanya managed to stop Rice Tec’s attempt to obtain a patent on the famous basmati rice while, in 2004, it was Monsanto’s turn to revoke the patent on a variety of Indian rice called Nap Hal.

These are important victories, although they cannot be considered final. Vigilance must remain high, as demonstrated by the recent case of Bt transgenic eggplants, for which cultivation in India has been blocked by a moratorium. The strategy being pursued by corporations is to elude the law by supplying farmers with illegal seed and promoting illegal sowing campaigns. The aim is to create new monopolies like that of cotton, a market which is firmly in Monsanto’s hands. Over 90% of Indian cotton, the second largest producer in the world, is Bt cotton. The lives of about 60 million people, including 4.5 million farmers, are linked to the production and trade of cotton controlled by the company recently acquired by Bayer.

The new frontier of corporations, or their new land of conquest, is that of climate resilient seeds. These are crops that are resistant to drought, flood and salt as a result of farmers’ collective breeding and innovation. The biotechnology industry, for its fictious part, claims the supremacy of genetic engineering over resilient crops. This is a multi-billion-dollar business at a time when extreme events are becoming more and more frequent: there are over 1500 patents held by corporations on resilient varieties, as the president of Navdanya once again reports. “The agrochemical and biotech industry,” writes Vandana Shiva, “is using the climate-resilient varieties developed by farmers by mapping their genomes and then claiming the traits originally selected by farmers as its own patent-protected inventions. This is not genetic selection, this is piracy, or rather biopiracy”.

The conservation of farmer bred varieties is, therefore, of primary importance. For many communities that cannot afford to purchase corporate patented seeds annually, being able to access freely distributed, resilient varieties can make the difference between life and death. The seed, on which our entire food chain depends, has never been so at risk. With greedy multinationals continued attempt to take seeds out of the public domain in order to further extend their control over our food.

Therefore protecting, preserving and freely distributing seeds becomes a matter of survival and freedom that concerns everyone on the planet. As Vandana Shiva points out: “Saving and breeding local seeds has become a political, social, economic, ecological, health and scientific imperative. Only in this way farmers can secure their livelihoods, while consumers can be assured of nutritional security, as well as food of good taste and quality”.

By Manlio Masucci (text and photos) – Navdanya International, 17 March 2020

The original article was first published in Italian in Terra Nuova magazine, February 2020

Translation kindly provided by Arianna Porrone and the Navdanya International Team

This post is also available in: Italian, Spanish

Victims and culprits: the way we produce our food is responsible for a large share of the climate altering emissions

Speaking of climate change, sometimes it feels like we are witnessing a b-series remake of an Alfred Hitchcock movie, where the culprits are disclosed from the very beginning while the rest of the plot carries on describing the circumstances of the crime, almost forgetting that the murderers and their accomplices are still on the loose and in a position to continue to commit crimes.

So, we know that the culprits, or at least some of the main ones responsible for the crimes committed against the planet and all its inhabitants, have long been identified on the basis of solid documentary evidence. We even have their admissions. Yet the prosecution continues to be delayed, leaving the offenders and their accomplices free to pursue their shady business.

As mentioned, the culprits and their accomplices are known to us but it is worth mentioning them. In the dock are the large industrial farms and factory farms that are part of the agribusiness system, the large-scale distribution system, as well as lobbying groups, scientists who are anything but independent, and complacent journalists. And last but not least, those policy makers who ensure the survival of an obsolete and outdated system, by continuing to provide subsidies and tax breaks to the wrong subjects.

What is being contested is, simply put, our food production system, which is responsible in large part for the climate-altering emissions. A system, offshoot of the Green Revolution, which since the 1940s has gradually been imposed as the dominant model with the promise of feeding the world’s growing population. Before going into the reasons why such a production system has caused, and continues to cause considerable damage to the health of the planet and of its inhabitants, it is necessary to point how that promise has been totally disregarded. According to the latest FAO data, the food security of a large part of the world’s population has not been guaranteed at all, with 820 million people in the world still suffering from hunger. The production system has also created new forms of poverty and marginalisation, new health emergencies, loss of food sovereignty and new forms of exploitation, contributing to the malaise of the world’s population.

In short, the pretext, promoted by these same culprits to justify the industrialization and globalization of the production and distribution of our food, does not hold up. The damage was done not while trying, in good faith, to save the world, but rather while trying to inflate the budgets and dividends of corporations in the sector which ensured almost exclusive, hegemonic and monopolistic control of the agri-food market, through aggressive acquisitions, land grabbing, forced displacement of populations, the use of intellectual property, and blatant lobbying operations.

This is the case of the global seed market that, after the very recent round of mergers of the major corporations in the sector, is controlled by more than 60% by just four companies that simultaneously hold 70% of the agrochemical products market, including pesticides and fertilizers. The race for monopolies is literally suffocating the market by imposing the rule of the fittest, dictating production models, grabbing most of public subsidies and in effect widely inhibiting the emergence of alternative and sustainable models. The control over seeds, the first link in our food chain, allows large multinationals to impose their own rules on agricultural production systems. And at the centre of corporate attention are, interestingly enough, resilient traditional varieties, such as those resistant to salt, drought and flooding. Thus insult is added to injury: not only are the culprits freely on the loose, but they are aiming to reorganize themselves to gain space for themselves in the economic model of the future.

Subsidies and tax breaks: citizens’ taxes support a system with negative productivity and strong environmental impacts.

Industrially produced food, transported along the extensive and unsustainable supply chains (where 30% of the product is lost) is harmful in many ways. According to FAO data, one third of the product value is lost in social costs. The global value of food production has been calculated at $2.8 trillion, environmental costs have been calculated at $3 trillion, to which another $2.8 trillion should be added for costs related to the loss of social welfare and conflicts caused by the loss of natural resources such as soil and water. In short, for every euro of food produced we have already spent another 3. These are some of the so-called hidden costs that taxpayers pay.

The industrial agricultural system therefore has a negative productivity, and could not sustain itself without the enormous public subsidies. The health, environmental and societal costs are not taken into account and are treated as externalities that do not affect the final price of products. People all over the world are paying billions in subsidies out of their own pockets and turning them into profits for the companies themselves. The aim of the current system, which we cannot define as a food system but rather an industrial agricultural system, is therefore not to guarantee adequate nutrition and human wellbeing, but to maximise the profits of Big Food.

A global trend, but one that sees Italy once again in the front line. According to a recent report by the Food and Land Use Coalition, the public donates more than 1 million dollars per minute of global agricultural subsidies, many of which are at the root causes of the climate crisis and the ecosystem destruction. The idea is that subsidies are needed to provide cheap food to feed the growing world population. But this is an empty and misleading slogan. The report confirms that the cost of the damages currently caused by agriculture is higher than the value of the food produced. Changing the use of subsidies to instead store carbon in the soil, produce healthier food, and reduce waste is not only a necessity but also a huge opportunity as a real driver of economic development.

If the global situation does not look rosy, what happens in Italy where excesses of zeal often lead our ruling classes to be more realistic than the king? According to an analysis carried out by the Senate’s Impact Assessment Office, based on the data contained in the first Environmental Subsidies Catalogue produced by the Ministry of the Environment, in Italy the system of subsidies is flanked by that of tax concessions for activities that have a major impact on the environment and therefore on climate change. These include nitrogenous fertilizers, mineral water, electricity consumed by households and agricultural and manufacturing companies, methane gas for domestic use, plant protection products including insecticides and herbicides. favorable VAT, exemptions, tax credits are, as analysed in the report, a real godsend for polluters given that almost all environmentally harmful subsidies (more than 97%) are tax discounts (estimated value of 22 billion euros, compared to 19 billion direct subsidies).

So what’s the result of this productive system, from the net money spent by taxpayers to finance it? According to the IPCC, between 25 and 30% of the impacting emissions are caused by the current agri-food system. But this is a cautious calculation. According to other estimates this percentage would be around 50%. A calculation that is not easy considering all the elements that contribute to the total sum: in addition to agriculture and livestock farming, also deforestation practices, transportations, processing and packaging, refrigeration, distribution and waste of the actual food produced must be added to the final sum.

We know who are those responsible for the current environmental disaster, and yet not only do we continue as though nothing is happening, but with our taxpayers’ money we are financing all of their hardware and we are even prepared to pay the costs of the damage as a result of their crimes.

It is not only a matter of production systems but of a holistic vision that aims to evolve our relationship with the earth and with all its species.

The way we produce our food plays a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change mitigation. The dominant industrial food production – characterised by commercial seeds, use of chemicals, high water consumption, energy-intensive giant agricultural equipment and a massive global transport system based on fossil fuels – is very vulnerable to climate change and significantly contributes to this phenomenon. Food processing, packaging, long-distance refrigeration and mass transport infrastructure systems contribute to the use of fossil fuels. Soils treated with chemical fertilizers and emptied of organic matter lose their ability to retain water, making agricultural areas more vulnerable to drought and flooding. Parallel to that, economic globalization policies increase the environmental impacts by employing resource and energy intensive consumption patterns.

We can therefore say that agriculture is one of the most vulnerable human activities to climate change, because it is based on the delicate balance of multiple ecosystem services. At the same time, agriculture can play an important role when it comes to solutions to climate change. It is agroecology in particular that provides the basis for that transition. A multitude of studies, including those of international bodies such as the FAO, recognise that a paradigm shift towards agroecological agriculture is urgent and necessary, and represents a solution to the interconnected crises of our time, not only in the agricultural sector, but also in the economic and social spheres, particularly in the face of climate change.

But how can agroecology help mitigate climate change?

Through a transformative approach, agroecology regenerates soil fertility and other ecological and biological processes in ecosystems, as well as it ensures local communities’ livelihoods by recycling nutrients and allowing the production of significant amounts of food with minimal use of external inputs. Agroecological systems are designed to regenerate functional biodiversity to improve the sustainability of agroecosystems, by providing ecological services, such as biological pest regulation, nutrient cycling, water and soil conservation.

Stability and sustainability are enhanced by the mutually beneficial functions found in nature through biodiversity, with beneficial effects on climate change adaptation and mitigation. For instance, crop diversification techniques developed by traditional farmers, represent an important resilience strategy. Biodiversity of plants, animals and soil micro-organisms is consequently essential to ensure the necessary balance of factors that makes agroecosystems more resilient to climate change.

As Vandana Shiva argues, “biodiversity increases resilience, returning more carbon to the soil, and improving the soil’s ability to withstand drought, flooding and erosion. Less diverse or monoculture-based ecosystems are extremely vulnerable and unsustainable”. Not only do we have the right and the duty to curb the wave of organised criminality against the planet and its inhabitants, but we also have the counter evidence that the agribusiness dictatorship is far from necessary for our survival.

The solutions are within reach but a political breakthrough is needed to boost the transition

Alternatives to the industrial productive system exist and are already locally practiced, with excellent results. These alternatives are based on an agro-ecological approach, the conservation of biodiversity, the promotion of organic farming, the enhancement of short supply chains, tending to the values of fairness and social justice. Even the myth of low productivity, perpetrated by the industry itself, has now been dismissed. According to FAO data, while using 75 percent of the total land, industrial agriculture based on fossil fuel, chemically intensive monocultures produce only 30 percent of the food we eat, while small farms, which use 25 percent of the land, provide 70 percent of the food.

Agro-ecological solutions to climate change are based on a systemic approach, on a deep understanding of the transformation processes of living beings, which involve political, social and economic transformations. Multi-functional and diverse agricultural systems and locally diversified food systems are essential to ensure food security in an era of climate change. A rapid global transition to such systems is imperative both to mitigate climate change and to ensure food security.

As stated in the “Declaration of Small Food Producers and Civil Society Organisations” at the Second International Symposium on Agroecology: “Agroecology cannot be understood as a simple set of production techniques and practices. Agroecology is a lifestyle to our peoples, carried on in harmony with the language of nature. It represents a paradigm shift in the way we deploy social, political, productive and economic relations with our territories, to transform the way we produce and consume food and to restore a socio-cultural reality devastated by industrial food production. Agroecology generates local knowledge, builds social justice, promotes identity and culture and strengthens the economic vitality of rural and urban areas”.

Agroecology can therefore represent a systemic solution, a cornerstone of the necessary paradigm shift in production. Politicians must then admit their mistakes and stop justifying and protecting those responsible for the environmental and social disaster, and instead facilitate the transition through the enhancement of local experiences. The challenge of sustainable development in the 21st century lies precisely in reorienting our agricultural and food systems to make them not only more compatible with the nutritional and health needs of a growing world population, but also environmentally and financially sustainable.

There are many local realities which, pending systemic change, have embarked on the path of transition. In Italy alone, about 70 mayors have decided to curb the bullying of industrial agriculture by tightening the regulations in their municipalities, while the experience of the bio-districts explicitly refers to the agroecological one. The common characteristic of this type of local initiatives is precisely the systemic approach. Agriculture no longer represents a productive practice isolated from the rest of the world, surrounding the fields. By taking care of the soil, aquifers, agricultural production, air and landscape aesthetics, communities are rediscovering the value of aesthetically attractive landscapes, quality catering, the enhancement of local traditions and the preservation of the social fabric. A process of regeneration that can, in turn, feed new circuits of local and sustainable economy, as is the case with rural tourism. It is through a different way of doing agriculture that we can not only put a stop to climate change, but also create a cleaner, fairer and more welcoming world for future generations.

The original article in Italian was primarly published on Terra Nuova magazine of November 2019

Translation kindly provided by Arianna Porrone and the Navdanya International Team

This post is also available in: Italian, Spanish

Also read:

By Dr Vandana Shiva – The Ecologist, 24th January 2020 | Source

Dr Vandana Shiva argues that agroecology holds the key to solving the climate and ecological crisis in a just and equitable way.

George Monbiot’s recent column, “Lab-grown food will soon destroy farming – and save the planet”, strikes me as a dystopian vision of the future, with no people working the land and humans eating ‘fake’ food produced in giant industrial  factories from microbes.

Monbiot concludes in his article: “Farmfree food will allow us to hand back vast areas of land and sea to nature, permitting rewilding and carbon drawdown on a massive scale. Farmfree food offers hope where hope was missing. We will soon be able to feed the world without devouring it.”

Einstein’s famous quote immediately comes to mind – he warned: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.

Ecological being

The notion that high-tech “farm free” lab food will save the planet is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today – the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature. 

This paradigm evolved with the fossil fuel age of industrial production; it is the basis of industrial agriculture which has destroyed the planet, farmers livelihoods and our health.

Unfortunately, it is also the basis of the author’s vision of the future of food and farming – the total industrialisation of our food and of our lives, which is, as the aphorism ‘we are what we eat’ tells us, the ultimate industrialisation of humans – the final step in ending our earth-centeredness and ecological being.

Turning “water into food” is an echo from the times of the second world war, when it was claimed that fossil-fuel-based chemical fertilisers would produce “Bread from Air”. Instead we have dead zones in the ocean, greenhouse gases – including nitrous oxide which is 300 times more damaging to the environment than CO2 – and desertified soils and land.

We are part of nature, not separate from and outside of nature. Food is what connects us to the earth, its diverse beings, including the forests around us — through the trillions of micro organisms that are in our gut microbiome and which keep our bodies healthy, both inside and out.   

Cultural heritage

Eating is an ecological act, not an industrial, mechanical act.

The web of life is a food web. We cannot separate food from life. Likewise, we cannot separate ourselves from the earth.

The problem is not farming, but industrial agriculture. This commodity-based, fossil fuel intensive and chemical intensive industrial food system has contributed 50 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate havoc and threatening agriculture. 

It has caused 75 percent of the destruction of soils, 75 percent of the destruction of water resources, and the pollution of our lakes, rivers and oceans; 93 percent of crop diversity has been pushed to extinction through industrial agriculture.

And 75 percent of the chronic diseases that are killing us have their roots in industrial food.

Assuming that this particular, distorted and violent method of farming – which has been imposed on the world over less than a century – is the only way humans have farmed and can farm, reveals a blindness to the diverse cultures and diverse practices of farming, and threatens the cultural heritage of every country in the world.

This passionate promotion of fake food also threatens our connection with the earth and the joy and satisfaction of eating food produced with care and intelligence by fellow beings.

It threatens our wellbeing, our health and the health of the planet by removing small farmers who care for the land and regenerate the earth.  Making Lab Food the basis of what we eat brings us closer to a robotic, non-participatory, non-creative and high-tech-based existence which denies the creativity of intelligent life.

Agroecology

The English word “agriculture” comes from a combination of the Latin words agrum (form “ager”, meaning “field, farm, land, estate”) and cultura (“care”, “growing”, “cultivation”), which became ‘agricultura’ (agriculture, farming and, etymologically, care for the land).

Real farming is farming with nature, in nature’s ways, which are the laws of ecology. Real food is a by-product of the economy of care for the land. It protects the life of all beings on earth and also nourishes our health and wellbeing.  

“Sensible farm policies” not only exist but are today being practiced around the globe.  Agroecology, which encompasses common ecological principles – organic farming, permaculture, biodynamic farming, natural farming regenerative agriculture, among many others – has been recognized as the most effective sustainable and equitable method of farming which also addresses the challenges of feeding the world in an era of climate crises. 

Agro-business interests and monopolies along with Government apathy have prevented agroecological farming from becoming the mainstream sustainable system for producing food.

At Navdanya we grow healthy food by conserving biodiversity through abundant pollinators and thriving soil organic matter which draws down carbon and nitrogen. By taking care of the earth we heal the broken carbon and nitrogen cycles that are driving climate change.

Corporate control

We stand at a precipice of a planetary emergency, a health emergency, and a crisis of farmers’ livelihoods.

‘Fake food’ will accelerate the rush to collapse by promoting the industrial model of food and life and the illusion that we live outside nature’s ecological processes. It will further destroy food democracy and increase corporate control over food and health.

Real food gives us a chance to rejuvenate the earth, our health, our food economies, our food freedom and food cultures through real farming that cares for the Earth and people.

Through real food we can decolonise our food cultures and our consciousness. We can remember that food is living and gives us life. Food is the currency of life.

Hope lies not in pursuing the skewed and lifeless industrialized and high-tech system of eating lab-produced fake food, but in returning to Earth Citizenship and becoming part of the Earth’s living cycles, and yes, re-wilding the land, our food and our bodies.

Navdanya International‘s annual report outlines the attacks of agro-business lobbies and the negative consequences that investments by large agro-industrial companies have on land, soil, biodiversity, human health and small and medium agricultural producers. The transformation that counteracts all of this has, nonetheless, already begun and  Navdanya points out as well the actions from the bottom up, that are capable of revolutionizing the current productive system. Do we want to work in harmony with the laws of nature or continue with this violence against the land so that we can eat food produced in laboratories that comes from and increasingly artificial agriculture? “We want food which comes from an agriculture that takes care of the land, that provides the solution to the ecological, climatic and health crises”, replies Vandana Shiva. 

“What’s the future of food?” The authors of the report “The Future of Food – Farming with Nature, Cultivating the Future”, edited by Navdanya International and available for free download online, analyze the trend of the global production system, describing the disastrous effects that the investments of large agro-industrial corporations have on the earth, the soil, biodiversity, human health and small and medium agricultural producers. The necessary transformation has, however, already begun. The report analyses, through case studies across the globe, the alternatives that are being developed in local areas, from the bottom up, and that are only waiting to be recognized as such and promoted at a systemic level.

Among the authors of the report Vandana Shiva, president of Navdanya International, examines the two paths that agricultural systems are facing: on the one hand the path of life that includes the principle of diversity, the law of return and the sharing of the commons; on the other hand the path of death, undertaken by the Poison Cartel and based on an unsustainable paradigm, the extensive use of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides, GMOs, monocultures and Big Data, which leads to the creation of Fake Food and artificial knowledge. The author calls for the decolonization of food cultures and the end of the era of food imperialism: “Do we want to work in harmony with the laws of nature – asks the Indian environmentalist – or continue with violence against the land to eat food produced in laboratories and from an increasingly artificial agriculture? We want food which comes from an agriculture that cares for the earth, which provides the solution to the ecological climate and health crises”.

An analysis supported by the research of Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, food ecology expert with 30 years of experience at FAO and member of the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture.  The author outlines the illusions, false promises and attacks of industrial agribusiness, from the first green revolution to the renewed attempts to impose the industrial agriculture model in different guises. She also describes the real state of organic farming, how it fits into the current socio-political landscape, and the support it enjoys from important international institutions. On the other hand, that of agribusiness, we find instead the tactics used by the industry to undermine the credibility of independent science and discourage the transition towards an ecological and sustainable agri-food model. This is a real attack against small and medium sustainable production that sees the industry lobby at work, also in Italy, as demonstrated by the recent attacks on the initiatives of Minister of Education Fioramonti, who intends to discourage the presence of junk food in schools and promote environmental education.

Education, along with the promotion of a healthy diet is, on the other hand, essential both for our health and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by industrial agriculture, which is among the major contributors to climate change, as noted by geneticist Salvatore Ceccarelli, who emphasizes the value of traditional seeds, which, through natural breeding enhanced by the active participation of farmers and agronomists, are able to adapt to diverse climate and geographical scenarios over time and to evolve adaptability and resilience.

The report presents various case studies showing the difficulties of small organic producers in areas dominated by intensive monocultures. This is the case with organic farms in Trentino Alto Adige, where organic farmers are threatened on a daily basis by pesticide drifts caused by surrounding intensive monocultures of apples. A particular focus is on the case of Mals, the first municipality to hold a referendum against pesticides. The situation is dramatic, but one can’t lose hope for a radical transformation towards a sustainable future for food and agriculture. There are many virtuous examples. First of all, the Indian state of Sikkim, which has managed to convert 100% of its agricultural production to organic farming, while facing resistance from the opposition and from farmers, but continuing with determination to carry out a political project that has lasted 25 years.

Then there are the numerous small realities and local governments and municipalities that, through sustainable choices and actions of resistance, continue to promote and implement resilient and healthy production systems. In Italy 70 municipalities have already introduced measures to limit or ban the use of pesticides; in France 56 municipalities have also inspired metropolitan areas to ban the use of pesticides containing glyphosate; in the Philippines 200 municipalities have signed an agreement to preserve the soil and ban the use of toxic agrochemicals and, since 2017, the League of Organic Municipalities and Cities in the Philippines has a decisive influence on institutional decision-making processes. In Argentina, civil society movements have been protesting against Monsanto’s patents on seeds, while in Brazil, organic producers who practice agroecology are daily resisting threats and violence from the agricultural industry that makes extensive use of GMO seeds and pesticides (in 2017 alone more than 539.9 thousand tons of active pesticide activity were used in the country). In Costa Rica, organic farmers work in harmony with tropical biodiversity, which is, however, constantly at risk of disappearing due to the expansion of green deserts of monocultures. In Nigeria, civil society movements are denouncing the shortcomings of local and national institutions in countering the expansion of the industrial agricultural model and the approval of GMOs.

Other examples of small virtuous realities working with Navdanya International are described in the report, such as the “Bread of Freedom” movements in the Philippines, which provides education on ecological and sustainable practices that have a positive impact on people’s health; “Yayasan Emas Hitam Indonesia“, an organization that practices permaculture in Indonesia and that aims at promoting, supporting and developing regenerative solutions to poverty and development throughout the territory; “GMO & Poison Free Zones” is an initiative launched by activists and farmers concerned about the high level of contamination by GMOs and agrochemicals in South Africa, aimed at creating “GMO and poison free zones” and put pressure on the government for stricter standards for Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in South Africa; “Círculos de Sementes” in Portugal, responded to the first global call to action for seed freedom launched by Navdanya in 2012 and from there created a national network of “Circles of Seeds”, as well as an educational program of agroecology; “Peliti“, a Greek non-governmental organization that deals with the protection and dissemination of traditional seeds through a large national network of seed banks and that, since 2011, every year, together with Navdanya, organizes one of the largest and most popular International Seed Festivals.

From local to global, there are very many possible creative solutions for a transition towards Poison-free Food and Farming, which are increasingly supporting each other and forming a global network, but which also need effective support from institutions, local governments, citizens/consumers and producers. An example of this is the network of movements and farmers in the north-east of the United States gathered by Sterling College (USA) on the occasion of Navdanya International mobilization tour in May 2019, and the movement of students from California Universities, which has achieved the objective of banning the use of chemical herbicides in all green areas of state campuses.

Translation by Navdanya International

Photo by Riccardo Troisi for Comune-info

“Do we want to work in harmony with the laws of nature, or continue with the violence against the earth by eating food produced in laboratories and from an increasingly artificial agriculture?  We want food which comes from an agriculture that cares for the earth, which provides the solution to the ecological climate and health crises”.  This was how Vandana Shiva, president of Navdanya International, opened the evening presentation of the new report “The Future of Food, Farming with Nature, Cultivating the Future”, on Saturday 9 November in Florence.

The presentation of the Navdanya International report takes place at a time when we are witnessing a massive disinformation campaign against food production alternatives, such as agroecology, fed by multinationals in the sector, using the same methods already denounced in the Monsanto Papers, and involving so-called groups of scientists, uninformed parliamentarians and journalists:  “It is part of  the new neoliberal austerity – said Vandana Shiva – which impoverishes public information and then the multinationals come along and modify the information. We must take back the schools and minds of our children. And I am very happy that Italy has a very enlightened education minister who is standing up against junk foods and in favor of education on climate change in schools “.

Maria Grazia Mammuccini,  President of Federbio, affirmed the existence of a systematic attack on the practices of organic and biodynamic systems: “…. there is a law now which gives structure to the organic food production system that has been attacked by the “scientific” world that called for the blocking of this law,  behind which are animators linked to the multinationals “.

Nadia El Hage Scialabba, international expert in food ecology with 30 years of experience at FAO and member of the International Commissiono on the Future of Food also noted  that the chemical industry’s attacks have characterized the history of organic farming over the past 30 years. She noted how the industry  appropriates the terms, practices and visual images used for organic farming, and uses them to promote their own systems. She added: “What we live today, and in a very violent way, is that every time the organic and biodynamic movement tries to move forward, we must defend ourselves from the accusation of being unscientific, when in reality we have a systemic approach that is more sophisticated than the reductionist one based on conventional agriculture “.

Bernardo Gozzini, climatologist and director of the Italian Lamma (weather) Consortium, cited the recent IPCC report on climate change and land use, which clearly shows the role of agriculture in greenhouse gas emissions. He also pointed out agriculture’s dual role of either contributing to or mitigating climate change by either emitting GHGs or absorbing  carbon dioxide, depending on what type of agriculture is practiced.

The report “The Future of Food, Farming with Nature, Cultivating the Future”, which brings together international experts, is freely available to download online.  It first gathers evidence of global resistance against the industrial agri-food system.  Second it gives examples of good ecological practices among farmers, local communities and civil society organizations, as part of Navdanya International’s campaign for Poison-free Food and Farming,  and third, it provides a global perspective as continuation of the work of the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture.  In conclusion, it represents a milestone itn the analysis of the agro-food systems begun with the publication of the Food for Health Manifesto in 2018.

As part of the evening’s event,  with the theme “Agriculture that is good for the climate“, the Italian publication of the new book co-authored by Vandana Shiva and Andre Leu, “Biodiversity, agroecology, Regenerative Organic Agriculture”” was also presented, published by Terra Nuova Edizioni.   The book evidences that sustainable agricultural practices are the only solution to combat social inequalities and climate change, and guarantee food and water to all the inhabitants of the Earth.

It is significant that at a time in history when a global economic paradigm shift is being loudly and clearly demanded due to the evident and documented failure of the current system of production, global trade and distribution that is leading us to environmental and climate catastrophe,  this same apparatus of enormous corporate interests and highly paid lobbyists that disseminate false information, with ill-concealed concern, are putting to task the Italian Minister of Education, Lorenzo Fioramonti. The Minister has announced that he is creating a scientific committee on sustainable development that includes the presence of prominent and internationally recognized personalities such as Enrico Giovannini, Jeffrey Sachs and Vandana Shiva.  The latter a choice of much concern for those who have every interest in preventing change of any form.

The choice is consistent with the positions already expressed by the Minister and with the same requests from the Italians. In a letter sent to the students in view of the next climate strike on 27 September, Fioramonti announced his position in favour of a sustainable economy, recognising that our development model is destroying us and must be changed as soon as possible. And this position responds to the expectations of 89% of Italians who, according to a recent survey, believe that global warming is an emergency, while 67% of our citizens do not believe that the Italian government is doing enough to tackle climate change. Environment and ecology must necessarily be part of school education programs if we want to save the planet and our society.

That is enough to put the establishment on the defensive. Once again, the mud machine, which is now known to have very predictable mechanisms, avoids mentioning critical issues and possible solutions to problems recognized by all major international institutions, starting with the United Nations.  On the contrary, though the norm, the machine opts instead to attack individuals who are advocates of an alternative model of development, fairer and more socially inclusive and respectful of the environment.  We are faced with a stranglehold in the face of the danger that a reformulation of the economic paradigm may affect partisan interests and balances of power that have done nothing but increase social inequalities and aggravate the environmental and health crisis, both in Italy and abroad.

In the face of the attacks of certain press and of certain “specialized” institutes linked to partisan interests, it would be sufficient to respond with data taken from official sources. But we don’t think that’s the point. Especially after the Monsanto Papers scandal that unveiled to the world the way in which multinationals systematically attack non-aligned journalists and scientists in order to protect their interests. Instead, we believe it is important to underline the logic of such manoeuvres that take place, not by chance, in the aftermath of the New York summit, where Greta Thunberg confronted world leaders with their non-action: “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”.

The vision of globalization and corporate capitalism considers the planet as a deposit of unlimited resources to be exploited to create wealth. The evaluation criterion that is used for the health of the economy is, however, “growth”, represented by anonymous numbers that tell us nothing about the real conditions of wellbeing. The feeling of outrage and impatience expressed by Greta is the same that must animate good politics today. We have only 11 years to reverse the trend according to the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Change is possible, but first of all we must regain that very science which deniers and detractors are constantly delivering, paradoxically accusing those who go against their interests of being “anti-scientific”. As Albert Einstein said, you can’t solve a problem with the same mindset that created it.

For the record, science is telling us that between 25% and 30% of emissions are caused by the current food system, which in turn pollutes groundwater with chemicals considered likely to be carcinogenic by the IARC. The food produced in this way, transported along long and unsustainable supply chains (where 30% of the product is lost) is in turn harmful to human health. According to FAO data, one third of the value of the product is lost in social costs. While the global value of food production has been calculated at $2.8 trillion, environmental costs have been calculated at $3 trillion, to which should be added another $2.8 trillion for costs related to the loss of social welfare and conflicts caused by the loss of natural resources such as soil and water. In short, for every Euro of food produced we have already spent 3. These are the so-called hidden costs that taxpayers pay. The industrial agricultural system therefore has a negative productivity, and could not be sustained without the enormous public subsidies. The report of the Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition estimates that the public provides more than $1 million per minute of global agricultural subsidies, many of which are at the root of the climate crisis and environmental destruction.

Market powers and modern economic systems, based on resource intensive and profit maximisation, are creating chaos in the world we live in, destroying both terrestrial ecosystems and democratic systems that guarantee justice and equality in society. By wiping out entire communities and destroying the biodiversity that keeps our planet alive, climate change is preventing diverse cultures and species from surviving and continuing to evolve. While industrial agriculture based on monocultures and intensive use of toxic chemicals is increasingly globalized, living species are disappearing at a rate that is 1000 times higher than usual, water resources are being depleted and soils are progressively desertifying, pushing entire communities to leave their lands. This is the case of Italy, as recently certified by Ispra which denounces how in Italy 14 hectares of soil are consumed per day with an increase of 180% in consumption since the 1950s and how our aquifers are increasingly polluted by the intensive use of pesticides of which our country is one of the first consumers in Europe.  Chronic non-communicable diseases are spreading at epidemic levels, as our bodies are denied the essential nutrients that only a diet based on biodiversity could provide and the microbiome of our digestive system is constantly attacked by multiple toxic substances. What is the cost of this system to public health financed by citizens’ taxes?  By 2030, the costs of non-communicable diseases are expected to exceed $30 trillion, or 48% of world GDP, helping millions of people fall below the poverty line.

Who benefits from this system which certain Italian press and institutions intend to defend so fiercely?   An ever smaller proportion of the population. According to a recent Oxfam report, the assets accumulated by the richest 1% of the world’s population are equal to those of the poorest half of humanity, or 3.6 billion people. In 2010, 1% was represented by 388 billionaires and in 2017 by just eight people. A process of concentration linked to an exclusive economic system, which exploits the resources of the planet and of people leaving behind nothing but desolation and poverty.

The results of the FAO global scenario analysis for 2050 clearly show that ‘business-as-usual’, where outstanding food and agricultural challenges are left unaddressed, leads to significant undernourishment by 2050, even if gross agricultural output expands by 50 percent from 2012 to 2050, which would in turn contribute to increasing GHG emissions. A modelling of the potential of a 100% conversion to organic agriculture that would  provide food to the population by 2050 and simultaneously reduce environmental impacts from agriculture, showed that organic management could indeed produce enough food for people without degrading the environment nor using more land, provided that the food system be designed to reduce by 50% food-competing feed use and food loss and waste. Consequently, reduced animal numbers (mainly, monogastrics) and reduced animal product consumption (globally, from 11 to 38%) are necessary. To this end, a comprehensive food systems perspective (of production and consumption) is crucial, rather than simply addressing a maximum yield goal for single crops as a stand-alone performance criterion.

According to the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, a paradigm shift would ensure a cumulative “gain” of 26 trillion dollars, compared to the expected result with the old model. Transforming food and land use systems in the next decade is a remarkable opportunity, which could have a social return more than 15 times higher than the necessary investment costs, which are estimated at less than 0.5% of global GDP. The report states that the shift to sustainable production of healthy food could unlock $4.5 trillion in new business opportunities each year by 2030. In addition, 65 million green jobs could be created by 2030 and 700 000 premature deaths from air pollution could be avoided within the next twelve years.

The alternatives are there, they already exist and have already proven their reliability, as pointed out by the FAO which identifies agroecology the key to redesigning the systems of global production and distribution ensuring food sovereignty to the world population. These are the alternatives on which we would like a debate to be opened. The challenge of sustainable development in the 21st century is to redirect our agricultural and food systems to make them not only more in line with the nutritional and health needs of a growing world population, but also environmentally and financially sustainable.

Diversity and pluralism of knowledge systems are vital for evolution and adaptation, especially in times of intensifying instability 
and great unpredictability which we are seeing today.   In this context, education and proper information are essential. All communities and cultures are creators of knowledge. Cultures that have survived over time have constantly evolved their knowledge systems, classified as “traditional knowledge” which today the dominant structures and institutions of knowledge production have steadily been undermining in favour of so called ‘experts’ that consistently exclude popular knowledge.

The right of communities and cultures to jointly develop and strengthen their knowledge, sharing this knowledge freely with other groups and networks, constitutes their sovereignty over knowledge. Pollution, degradation and depletion of our natural resources, together with global climate change, are a clear warning sign.

Now that the dominant model is showing its inadequacies and failures, we must necessarily recognize the plurality of knowledge systems and the potential of their integration, which is essential to increase our capacity for survival as a species. Adaptation in times of turbulence requires maintaining high levels of freedom and choice. This requires diversity in all its forms.  A holistic synthesis between popular knowledge and the best of modern ecological science is vital to return to a vital planet and to heal human society. In such pluralistic systems, local scientific and traditional knowledge grows and enriches through a complementary process of hybridization.

The Earth is living, and also creates life. Over 4 billion years the Earth has evolved a rich biodiversity — an abundance of different living organisms and ecosystems — that can meet all our needs and sustain life.

Through biodiversity and the living functions of the biosphere, the Earth regulates temperature and climate, and has created the conditions for our species to evolve. This is what NASA scientist James Lovelock found in working with Lynn Margulis, who was studying the processes by which living organisms produce and remove gases from the atmosphere. The Earth is a self-regulating living organism, and life on Earth creates conditions for life to be maintained and evolve.

The Gaia Hypothesis, born in the 1970s, was a scientific reawakening to the Living Earth. The Earth fossilized some living carbon, and transformed it into dead carbon, storing it underground. That is where we should have left it.

All the coal, petroleum and natural gas we are burning and extracting to run our contemporary oil-based economy was formed over 600 million years. We are burning up millions of years of nature’s work annually. This is why the carbon cycle is broken.

A few centuries of fossil fuel-based civilization have brought our very survival under threat by rupturing the Earth’s carbon cycle, disrupting key climate systems and self-regulatory capacity, and pushing diverse species to extinction at 1000 times the normal rate. The connection between biodiversity and climate change is intimate.

Extinction is a certainty if we continue a little longer on the fossil fuel path. A shift to a biodiversity-based civilization is now a survival imperative.

Take the example of food and agriculture systems. The Earth has roughly 300,000 edible plant species, but the contemporary global human community eats only 200 of them. And, according to the New Scientist, “half our plant-sourced protein and calories come from just three: maize, rice and wheat.” Meanwhile, only 10 percent of the soy that is grown is used as food for humans. The rest goes to produce biofuels and animal feed.

Our agriculture system is not primarily a food system, it is an industrial system, and it is not sustainable.

The Amazon rainforests are home to 10 percent of the Earth’s biodiversity. Now, the rich forests are being burned for the expansion of GMO soy crops.

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on land and climate highlights how the climate problem begins with what we do on land.

We have been repeatedly told that monocultures of crops with intensive chemical inputs of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are necessary for feeding the world.

While using 75 percent of the total land that is being used for agriculture, industrial agriculture based on fossil fuel-intensive, chemical-intensive monocultures produce only 30 percent of the food we eat, while small, biodiverse farms using 25 percent of the land provide 70 percent of the food. Industrial agriculture is responsible for 75 percent of the destruction of soil, water and biodiversity of the planet. At this rate, if the share of fossil fuel-based industrial agriculture and industrial food in our diet is increased to 40 percent, we will have a dead planet. There will be no life, no food, on a dead planet.

Besides the carbon dioxide directly emitted from fossil fuel agriculture, nitrous oxide is emitted from nitrogen fertilizers based on fossil fuels, and methane is emitted from factory farms and food waste.

The manufacture of synthetic fertilizer is highly energy-intensive. One kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of 2 liters of diesel. Energy used during fertilizer manufacture was equivalent to 191 billion liters of diesel in 2000 and is projected to rise to 277 billion in 2030. This is a major contributor to climate change, yet largely ignored. One kilogram of phosphate fertilizer requires half a liter of diesel.

Nitrous oxide is 300 times more disruptive for the climate than carbon dioxide. Nitrogen fertilizers are destabilizing the climate, creating dead zones in the oceans and desertifying the soils. In the planetary context, the erosion of biodiversity and the transgression of the nitrogen boundary are serious, though often-overlooked, crises.

Thus, regenerating the planet through biodiversity-based ecological processes has become a survival imperative for the human species and all beings. Central to the transition is a shift from fossil fuels and dead carbon, to living processes based on growing and recycling living carbon renewed and grown as biodiversity.

Organic farming — working with nature — takes excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, where it doesn’t belong, and puts it back in the soil where it belongs, through photosynthesis. It also increases the water-holding capacity of soil, contributing to resilience in times of more frequent droughts, floods and other climate extremes. Organic farming has the potential of sequestering 52 gigatons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the amount needed to be removed from the atmosphere to keep atmospheric carbon below 350 parts per million, and the average temperature increase of 2 degrees centigrade. We can bridge the emissions gap through ecological biodiversity-intensive agriculture, working with nature.

And the more biodiversity and biomass we grow, the more the plants sequester atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, and reduce both emissions and the stocks of pollutants in the air. Carbon is returned to the soil through plants.

The more we grow biodiversity and biomass on forests and farms, the more organic matter is available to return to the soil, thus reversing the trends toward desertification, which is already a major reason for the displacement and uprooting of people and the creation of refugees in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

Biodiversity-based agriculture is not just a climate solution, it is also a solution to hunger. Approximately 1 billion people are permanently hungry. Biodiversity-intensive, fossil-fuel-free, chemical-free systems produce more nutrition per acre and can feed more people using less land.

To repair the broken carbon cycle, we need to turn to seeds, to the soil and to the sun to increase the living carbon in the plants and in the soil. We need to remember that living carbon gives life, and dead fossil carbon is disrupting living processes. With our care and consciousness we can increase living carbon on the planet, and increase the well-being of all. On the other hand, the more we exploit and use dead carbon, and the more pollution we create, the less we have for the future. Dead carbon must be left underground. This is an ethical obligation and ecological imperative.

This is why the term “decarbonization,” which fails to make a distinction between living and dead carbon, is scientifically and ecologically inappropriate. If we decarbonized the economy, we would have no plants, which are living carbon. We would have no life on earth, which creates and is sustained by living carbon. A decarbonized planet would be a dead planet.

We need to recarbonize the world with biodiversity and living carbon. We need to leave dead carbon in the ground. We need to move from oil to soil. We need to urgently move from a fossil fuel-based system to a biodiversity-based ecological civilization. We can plant the seeds of hope, the seeds of the future.

Statement issued on 6th August, Hiroshima Day

On this day, 6 August 1945, the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima which immediately killed 80,000 people with tens of thousands more dying later as a result of radiation. As we remember the innocent victims, let us also think of the innocent victims killed in concentration camps and during the war as a result of the chemicals of war of the Poison Cartel.   This war and the poisoning continues.

These war technologies gave rise to chemical-based industrial agriculture, which is continuing to kill millions of species, driving the sixth mass extinction. Species are disappearing at 1000 times the normal rate as toxics and poisons spread to every corner of the world. The Amazon and Argentinian forests and savannahs, so rich in biodiversity, are being destroyed to grow GMO soya.

The world is facing an ecological and climate emergency, a food and health emergency, driven by industrial agriculture and the chemicals of the Poison Cartel.

In India, 300,000 farmers have now committed suicide and half the children are malnourished as a result of this industrial, globalised model of agriculture that poisons the earth, displaces farmers and replaces real food with commodities for trade.

As industrial agriculture spreads, hunger is growing.

Every 5 seconds a child under 5 dies because of hunger. Every year 9 million people die of hunger. According to the FAO more than 1 billion people suffer from hunger, including in rich countries where food is abundant.  This means that 1 in every 6 people on Earth don’t get enough food to live a healthy life.

Every year 200,000 people die of pesticide poisoning. Every sixth death in the world is due to cancer, making it the second leading cause of death (second only to cardiovascular diseases). Only 5% of cancers are genetic. The rest are due to toxics in the environment and in our food.  In 2017, 9.6 million people are estimated to have died from the various forms of cancer.  WHO has identified Glyphosate as a carcinogen.  Bayer and Monsanto have now 18,000 cases filed against them in US courts for causing cancers.

50% of the GHG driving climate change are emitted by the industrial food system. According to the WHO climate disasters result in over 60 000 deaths every year.

The Poison Cartel has given us decades of ecocide and genocide through its war chemicals.

As the alternative to chemical based industrial agriculture, Agroecology has been well proven. This includes all chemical free, ecological farming systems, including Organic Farming, Permaculture, Biodynamic Agriculture, and different schools of natural farming.

The multidimensional crises facing the world today can be addressed by returning to our Agroecological Roots.

The 10 elements of Agroecology are :

1. Diversity
2. Co-creation of knowledge and transdisciplinary approaches for innovation
3. Synergies
4. Efficiency
5. Recycling
6. Resilience
7. Human and social value
8. Culture and food traditions
9. Responsible governance
10. Circular and solidarity economy

There are diverse paths of agroecology and regenerative organic farming called by a diversity of names in India – Sajeev Kheti, Sendriya Kheti, Prakritic Khetic ,Vedic Krishi , Rishi Kershi , Jaivik Krishi, all referring to farming in nature’s ways.

The word for life in Hindi is Jiva and living is “Jaivik”. That is why ecological agriculture and Agroecology in India is referred to as “Jaivik Kheti”.   We are a civilisation that has upheld Diversity at the highest levels.

As the The Rig Veda reminded us:

Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti
The Real is one, the learned speak of it variously

Today’s globalized Agroecological systems, such as Organic Farming and Biodynamic Farming, have their roots in Indian Agroecological systems. Organic farming-based Agroecology is India’s gift to the world, like Yoga and Ayurveda.

What is called Organic Farming today is the distillation of 10,000 years of Agroecological knowledge of India. In 1905, more than a hundred years ago, the British sent their agricultural ‘guru’, Albert Howard, to “improve” Indian agriculture and set up the Pusa Institute. When he arrived he found the soils fertile and no pests in the fields.  So instead he made the Indian peasant his Professor. He then wrote his classic An Agricultural Testament based on India’s indigenous Agroecological sciences. Howard talks about how Indian peasants learnt to farm in “Nature’s ways” and made farming as permanent as the forest by applying Nature’s principles of diversity and law of return in agriculture.

Organic means integrated, living, holistic. It also means chemical free farmings.

It is inaccurate to present organic as if only organic that is “certified” and “organic industry” is organic.

Organic is not a product. It is not a mere technique.

It is a world view and a set of principles . And these principles are derived from nature and are the basis of our indigenous Agroecological traditions.

The organic world view is based on the principle of non separation and awareness of humans being part of a living world, in contrast to the mechanistic, industrial world view which sees humans as masters and manipulators of nature.

For over a century, Organic farming has evolved as a sophisticated system with a scientific foundation in Agroecology, a regulatory system that excludes GMOs, and an economic system from the local to the global level that provides an alternative to the ecocide and genocidal industrial model promoted by the Poison Cartel .

For this reason the Cartel is orchestrating an aggressive attack on organic farming in every country of the world where it is a significant alternative.

20 years ago, when I sued Monsanto in the Indian Supreme Court,  the company began spreading the falsehood that I was importing the Western concept of “Organic” to India. I responded by organising the Howard lectures, to remind that it was India that gifted Organic to the world. The Soil Association which was formed based on Howard’s book, and prominent global leaders, including Prince Charles and the late Edward affirmed their gratitude to India during their lectures for being the source of inspiration for the global organic movement. We honoured also Indian organic teachers like Nammalvar and Narayan Reddy .

It is therefore scientifically misleading to present organic farming as “imported” to India and to pit natural versus organic, as is becoming fashionable in some circles, as part of the divide and rule policy of the Poison Cartel.

Because organic philosophy, standards and systems exclude GMOS, the Poison Cartel is attacking organic to destroy the alternative that people have turned to for chemical and GMO free food.

Confusion is being created about organic so as to sneak in GMOs. Those being used by the Poison Cartel are unscientifically claiming that GMOs such as Bt cotton can be part of Natural farming.

India is being diverted and misled to prevent us from our turning to our ecological roots and knowledge to address the emergency in our country and to defend our sovereignty.

The Poison Cartel is propping up and supporting people who promote GMOs, and are calling Organic more dangerous than an Atom Bomb.

Calling Organic “worse than an atom bomb “ is to be ignorant of India’s agriculture history, and of the roots of the international organic movement in India’s ancient indigenous traditions. It is in effect an attack on India’s Ecological Civilisation and Indigenous Knowledge.  It is becoming an instrument of the Poison Cartel who wants to destroy our seed sovereignty, food sovereignty  and knowledge sovereignty.

The latest ploy of the Poison Cartel is to try and destroy India’s rich Agroecological traditions and practices with a strange, undefined beast named “Zero Budget Farming”.

The richness of imagination of our oneness with nature and our languages are being extinguished by an imported and imposed phrase – Zero Budget Farming – which is meaningless in Indian languages, but also in English . The Dictionary clearly states the meaning of budget as “an estimate of income and expenditure for a set period of time.”

Budget does not mean expenditure alone, it also includes income.

For a farmer Zero budget Farming will mean zero income. This is a recipe for making sure the agrarian crisis continues, farm incomes keep falling and drop to zero. This will create the future the Poison Cartel wants, one of farming without farmers.  The farmer will not gain,  the corporations will.

Zero Budget Farming is a corporate driven agenda to empty our minds of knowledge and intelligence to make sustainable and just choices, and empty the farmers pockets .“Zero Budget” is Mente Nullius, to create empty minds which cannot think and decide for themselves.

The AP experiment with zero budget farming is not based on Zero Budget for the state because it is supported by billions of dollars of loans which will have to be paid back.

The AP experiment also violates the core 10 elements of Agroecology synthesised by FAO from inputs from communities and scientists from across the world.

India must stop using the meaningless yet dangerous phrase “Zero Budget farming”.

The future is based on diverse Agroecological Systems in India and across the world, not the continuation of the rule of the Poison Cartel which will accelerate the current emergency, with more farmers committing suicide, more children dying of hunger and malnutrition, more climate catastrophes, more species extinction.

This industrial war against the Earth and its people must be stopped, for bringing peace with the Earth, and the health and survival of its citizens.