Feeding the World

Who, actually, feeds the world? According to the ETC group (formerly Rural Advancement Foundation International) in November 2007 the figures were approximately 50 percent peasant farmers; 13 percent hunter gatherers; 8 percent urban gardeners; and 30 percent the industrial food chain. These figures clearly show the warped view of the market approach to feeding the world, an approach which constantly seeks more access and more control, continually striving to accumulate more wherever it spies opportunity or potential despite the fact that the last 20 years of expanding agribusiness has resulted in 200 million more hungry people.

Here are some of the consequences of agribusiness:

Contract farming: Regarding the growth of contract farming 'extreme market power' leads to 'near bondage-like conditions' (‘Global Agribusiness: Two Decades of Plunder’, Seedling, July 2010). Because the farmers are not directly employed by the companies these do not have to comply with labour laws or deal with unions. Currently 50 percent of world pork production and 66 percent of poultry and eggs are now in industrialized farms either owned by large corporations or under contract to them. Dairy, coffee, fruit, vegetables and staples (grains) are some of the expanding areas. Consequently there are plenty of examples of worsening wages and conditions for workers around the world.

Commodity crops: Between 1990-2007 commodity crops increased to the detriment of food crops. The top five – oil palm, rape seed, soya, sugar cane and maize together increased by 38 percent whilst all other crops decreased by 4 percent and total crop land increased by only 2 percent. The increased volume of the top five were for biofuels and animal feed, not food for humans. Result? Bringing more corporations into agriculture whilst depriving small-scale farmers of a living.

Prices: Between 1974-1994 the difference between world prices (what is charged by traders) and domestic prices (what is paid to farmers) doubled. (UNCTAD) 'The past two decades of globalisation has…been about the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of Wall Street and other financial centres propelling the expansion of agribusiness…harnessing them ever tighter to the logic of fast and high returns which are made off the backs of workers, consumers and the environment' (Seedling).

Accumulation: This same Seedling article, shows that the average GDP for 135 non-G20 countries in 2005 was US$49 billion compared with average annual sales for the top 20 retail corporations of US$75 billion:

“Speculative capital in agricultural commodities coupled with corporate control at all levels of the food chain result in food distribution becoming separated from need. The corporate global food system is organised according to one principle only. Profit for the owners of the corporations.”

Capital is pushing hard to accumulate all it can from the remaining food system around the world still in the hands of peasants, indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers, but as they accumulate so, too, poverty increases. Twenty years of expanding agribusiness control has resulted in 200 million more hungry people. There are now more than 800 million small-scale farmers and farm workers who do not have enough to eat.

The first 'Green Revolution', focussed mainly in south Asia from around the 1970s, pushed genetically modified seed, chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides. One of the main players from the philanthropic arena was the Rockefeller Foundation, a family with links among others to the fossil fuel industry. Initially they were able to claim increased yields but over a short period of time the farmers were locked into a debt cycle having to purchase seeds and chemical inputs on an annual basis. Then the soil became impoverished requiring greater input, leading to more debt, suicides, migration to cities and increased poverty. Now we see the birth of the 'Second Green Revolution.' This time it is Africa's turn. Again one of the main philanthropists is the Rockefeller Foundation, this time in partnership with the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation and various transnational agricultural corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta. Again genetically modified crops are being heralded as the way forward. Students in Africa are being trained in biotechnology (and lobbying). Again the transnationals are queuing up for business. Independent science warning of high social, environmental and financial costs is struggling to be heard raising its voice against the giants.

If these arguments are not enough agribusiness is a well documented cause of climate change and other environmental disasters. The world's people don't need it. They need to be free from it. Free to determine their own methods of food production away from any commodification process. At liberty to produce and/or consume food without the strictures of capitalist corporate control as part of a life of self-determination and free association.

What the big agribusiness companies won't tell you
A look at some ecological agricultural studies, organic or near-organic, will reveal results contrary to agribusiness claims.

2001 – Of 208 sustainable agricultural projects around the world 89 had reliable yield data showing substantial increase of 50-100 percent for rain-fed crops and 5-10 percent for irrigated crops.

2007 – A study involving 286 projects in 57 countries of both the developed and developing world showed that by adopting ecological agriculture productivity went up significantly in the developing world. Whilst the ratio of organic to non-organic in developed countries averaged at 92:100, in developing countries organic methods produced 80 percent more than conventional farms. Further, the study showed that with average yields the global food supply could be grown organically to provide for a larger population without increasing farmland area. With a range of organic fertilisers as available, in particular leguminous crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace current levels of synthetic fertilisers.

So, there is the potential for enough food globally without the negative environmental impacts of conventional chemical-input agricultural production. (Chemical fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, monocrops for biofuels and animal feed, highly mechanised production are all heavy on fossil fuel use and emissions.)

2008 – The original data from the previous year's study was re-analysed to produce a summary of the impacts of organic and near-organic projects on agricultural productivity in Africa where the crop yield proved to be even higher than the global average of 79 percent. All-Africa – 116 percent, East Africa – 128 percent, Kenya – 179 percent, Tanzania – 67 percent, Uganda – 54 percent, 'challenging the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity' (Lim Li Ching, senior fellow, Oakland Institute).

Ecological agricultural practices
Data on compost use as opposed to no input or chemical fertiliser use show increased yields in staple crops of both grain and straw (grain for food, straw for compost or animal use). General conservation methods of water and soil, biological pest management, crop diversification, restoration of terracing, mulching, composting, no-till production; four large studies between 2001-2008 in Africa, Latin America and Asia all show significant increase in production, raising living standards for small-scale farmers.

Ecological agriculture is proved to be productive and has the potential to meet food security needs, particularly in developing countries. These methods allow farmers to improve local food production with low-cost readily available technologies and inputs without causing environmental damage whilst cutting out the big corporations, boosting the positives and reducing the negatives.

Which logic benefits humankind?
Why is it though that many urban dwellers, those removed from the land, distanced from their food believe that big agriculture is better? Could it be the unrelenting propaganda and advertising sound-bites from mega-corporations? Living in the so-called developed world of giant supermarkets and blanket media advertising one could be forgiven for believing that the whole world was already in the hands of the corporations – but no, not yet, it's not. Capital is working very hard to that end, competing to accumulate as fast and furiously as possible whatever remains available. The struggle remains unequal. Governments in thrall to vast corporations, philanthropic foundations and mega-wealthy individuals versus underfunded action groups, farmer and peasant affiliations and independent scientific studies available to individuals interested in learning the truth. But usually the mighty wins the PR battle.

If, individually, or even collectively as a minority, one prefers the mass produced, chemically-rich foods of the major corporations, how legitimate is it to attempt to force it onto a majority too? Whose legitimacy will win out? If world trade agreements and international laws serve the corporation deemed a person above the vast majority of world population can they not be declared illegitimate? The market approach seeks to impose an alien process of food production which, for solely economic reasons, completely changes the traditional way of life for many and totally disenfranchises others. The issue is heavily weighted against people in favour of capital. That is the norm in capitalism. But it doesn't make it right. And it isn't written in stone that it will always be so.

This argument has no need for the standard economics discussion about manpower, monetary inputs, annual growth and potential profits as it is being offered from the logic of socialism. When did farm workers anywhere in the world ever choose their vocation/livelihood from a 'normal' economic standpoint ? They have always been low earners. Why not instead accept the logic of having more people, not less, involved in farming in the widest sense – plant and animal husbandry, sustainability, healthier lifestyle, reinstating degraded areas, repairing damage done, re-localising and protecting against environmental hazards – all requiring increased human, not monetary, input? Why not accept the logic of everyone working for the common interest in all areas, not just food production?

Why not aim for outcomes that are beneficial for the whole human race, not just profit for the few?

The good news for both farmers and the consumers of food is that growing healthy food is also good for the soil, for water and for environmental sustainability in general, ensuring a much better outcome for all humankind.
JANET SURMAN