The price of rice is rising, and this is bad news for near half of the world’s population who depend on it for their daily fill. Earlier this year, a wave of pests and disease swept across Vietnam’s rice fields, decimating crops and causing several rice producing countries to limit their export in order to secure their domestic stock. The world seems to teetering on the brink of a global food crisis, in times where population explosion demands more than ever from the agricultural industrial machine.
And an industry it is. In the 1960’s, the US-funded “Green Revolution” brought monocultural practices to Asia and Latin America, introducing farming practices that focus on a few, chemical fertilizer-reliant crops, optimized for yield, not nutritional value or suitability to local conditions. Monoculture production promised to do for food production what the Model T had done for auto production, and at first glance it worked, the soil boosted by oil-based fertilizer.
But now we are starting to see what loss of diversity, and introduction of plant varieties poorly suited to local conditions, really mean for crop resilience. In naturally evolved ecosystems, diversity provides a buffer mechanism. In the event of a disaster, this buffer provides a chance of survival for at least some species, that will continue living to form the base of a new stable ecosystem. Monoculture, by definition, is poorly suited to rapidly changing conditions. As we can see from Vietnam, a combination of a virus and a rapidly spreading pest (whose natural enemies probably were gone because of human interference), caused devastating damage to an entire country’s crops.
The Georgia Straight has an in-depth article on Monoculture practices and the food crisis, and how soil productivity and yield can actually be improved using more traditional, sustainable farming practices. I highly recommend it. It also mentions the recently opened Global Seed Vault in the northern island of Svalbard (Norway), care of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (FAO, UN). On the one hand, it means the UN are acknowledging the importance of global crop diversity. On the other hand, the vault has received sizable donations from Syngenta and DuPont, biotech seed giants that have a track record of locking seeds in patents. They have played a big role in the Monoculture industry, and are completely invested in the status quo, so what are their intentions?
[via straight.com, dn.se (Swedish)]
This entry was posted on Monday, April 28th, 2008 at 10:00 am and is filed under environment, humanity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Commodity speculation is also a great factor in the food crisis. As investors are now shifting their capital out of the failing real estate market many have begun to invest heavily in food commodity futures. It is reported (sadly i can’t cite the source right now) that this speculative investment has resulted in food cost increases far beyond what can be accounted for on the basis of simple product supply and demand factors. It is alleged that these speculators are effectively (though not necessarily knowingly) investing in mass starvation.
Commodity speculation is also a great factor in the food crisis. As investors are now shifting their capital out of the failing real estate market many have begun to invest heavily in food commodity futures. It is reported (sadly i can’t cite the source right now) that this speculative investment has resulted in food cost increases far beyond what can be accounted for on the basis of simple product supply and demand factors. It is alleged that these speculators are effectively (though not necessarily knowingly) investing in mass starvation.
May 2nd, 2008
1:15 am
… and entire countries, upon realizing that they need to secure their future food supply, will join the speculation, further upping the prices and diminishing said supply…
… and entire countries, upon realizing that they need to secure their future food supply, will join the speculation, further upping the prices and diminishing said supply…
May 2nd, 2008
4:13 pm
As a third generation western Canadian farmer I take exception to the simplistic view of monoculture being largely to blame for the current food crisis. The article is about blame and not solutions with the possible exception of John Jeavons pitch for “mini-farming” techniques.
This is a far more complex problem than is stated and generalizations like this do more harm than good. Points to ponder:
Alexg is right. Things went haywire when they decided to let speculators buy and sell food. It is creating huge swings in markets and is creating starvation. Finally, farmers and agriculture are not to blame. Farmers want to grow what the consumer wants to buy. If consumers want to pay the cost of production for traditional seeds grown organically, farmers will do their best to supply. Keep in mind that using traditional seed varieties (typically more prone to disease etc, a fact ignored in the article, which is why newer varieties were developed) and growing them organically (land just won’t grow the quantities without chemical and fertilizer) means even less food for the poor and less fortunate.
As a third generation western Canadian farmer I take exception to the simplistic view of monoculture being largely to blame for the current food crisis. The article is about blame and not solutions with the possible exception of John Jeavons pitch for “mini-farming” techniques.
This is a far more complex problem than is stated and generalizations like this do more harm than good. Points to ponder:
Alexg is right. Things went haywire when they decided to let speculators buy and sell food. It is creating huge swings in markets and is creating starvation. Finally, farmers and agriculture are not to blame. Farmers want to grow what the consumer wants to buy. If consumers want to pay the cost of production for traditional seeds grown organically, farmers will do their best to supply. Keep in mind that using traditional seed varieties (typically more prone to disease etc, a fact ignored in the article, which is why newer varieties were developed) and growing them organically (land just won’t grow the quantities without chemical and fertilizer) means even less food for the poor and less fortunate.
May 5th, 2008
7:50 pm
I agree that the article in question brings forth an overly simplistic argument on a complex issue. It is too early to state that monocropping has had any major impact on the current food crisis.
What I am concerned about is 1) the inherent ecological instability (evidenced by the incidents in Vietnam) of relying on a few crop varieties; and 2) that current agricultural practices rely heavily on petrochemical fertilizer and pesticides.
While it might be true that current population numbers could not be sustained without the help of agrochemicals, I fear that a far more massive decline in world population would be necessary in the event of a global agricultural collapse. This might happen due to pests/disease, or due to increased fuel prices.
The alternative as I see it (granted, not a realistic one) is to transition now into using organic + permaculture farming methods on a global scale. Doing so would intensify research in miaximizing yield using these methods, and who knows? It might turn out that ecologically sustainable farming techniques are more efficient than those reliant on chemicals.
Barring that, we need to seriously start discussing the question of population control in human civilization.
I agree that the article in question brings forth an overly simplistic argument on a complex issue. It is too early to state that monocropping has had any major impact on the current food crisis.
What I am concerned about is 1) the inherent ecological instability (evidenced by the incidents in Vietnam) of relying on a few crop varieties; and 2) that current agricultural practices rely heavily on petrochemical fertilizer and pesticides.
While it might be true that current population numbers could not be sustained without the help of agrochemicals, I fear that a far more massive decline in world population would be necessary in the event of a global agricultural collapse. This might happen due to pests/disease, or due to increased fuel prices.
The alternative as I see it (granted, not a realistic one) is to transition now into using organic + permaculture farming methods on a global scale. Doing so would intensify research in miaximizing yield using these methods, and who knows? It might turn out that ecologically sustainable farming techniques are more efficient than those reliant on chemicals.
Barring that, we need to seriously start discussing the question of population control in human civilization.
May 7th, 2008
8:51 am
The discussion on chemicals and ferilizer has been going on since the introduction of chemicals and fertilizer in the 1950’s. What is annoying is that people say that farmers should be doing this or they should be doing that, usually armed with insufficient information.
My point is that this has to be driven upstream by the consumer and the regulatory agencies. An example is that if no person or no country will buy or import a certain product (GMO wheat) then there becomes no reason to continure that agrinomic practise. It’s not about how we should farm but how we should consume.
Per, did you say “population control”?
The discussion on chemicals and ferilizer has been going on since the introduction of chemicals and fertilizer in the 1950’s. What is annoying is that people say that farmers should be doing this or they should be doing that, usually armed with insufficient information.
My point is that this has to be driven upstream by the consumer and the regulatory agencies. An example is that if no person or no country will buy or import a certain product (GMO wheat) then there becomes no reason to continure that agrinomic practise. It’s not about how we should farm but how we should consume.
Per, did you say “population control”?
May 7th, 2008
3:03 pm