For much of human history peoples’ dependence on the natural environment limited their impact on nature. Sustainable development as it relates to food production, as defined by the U.N.’s World Commission on Environment and Development – development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs – has clearly been our tradition for a very long time.
We have strayed from food traditions that adequately functioned. It is evident now that the Green Revolution has kept one promise: guaranteeing cheap and convenient food, but only for some. Liberation from hunger, equitable access to food among peoples from developed and developing countries, clean and healthy food for all did not materialize. Cheap and ignorance are mutually reinforcing. Cheap food is not without costs.
The following posts higlight important aspects of the global food chain's history, as well as link the past to the present.
December 18, 2007
The Emergence of Agriculture
For the majority of modern human’s existence, human beings have lived by what is referred to as hunting and gathering. Hunter-gatherers procured food by hunting, trapping, fishing and/or gathering edible wild animals and plants for food and other useful materials. These bands were typically egalitarian, shared resources and hunted and gathered cooperatively. During this period people's connection to the land was of total dependence, for it was fundamental to their survival. Because hunting and gathering depended entirely on the natural environment, these peoples tended to live a sustainable lifestyle by limiting their impact on nature.
By 12,000 years ago at the latest, human populations had spread into most of the livable regions of the globe, including Australia and North and South America. About 10,000 years ago, some of these rapidly evolving bands moved away from their hunting and gathering practices and began to settle down and grow their own food; these settlements were our first agriculturalists. With agriculture human society was forever changed. Villages, towns, cities began to flourish, and so did knowledge, artistic expression, organized religion, and technology. During this era, people learned how to plant seeds, and how to take care of edible plants. Then they learned how to domesticate and breed the animals. Herding animals made life a lot easier because then people wouldn't have to move in order to hunt animals to eat. The men that were earlier hunter-gatherers now became farmers (Wikipedia, 2007).
Agriculture and Modern Food Chain
Over the course of the past 10,000 years, agriculture gradually spread throughout the earth, and eventually became the dominant mode of life in nearly all of the areas of the world inhabited by humans, forming the basis for a new way of life, which we call civilization. Human specialization became important as people were ensuring continued existence by learning new ways to produce and preserve food. Agriculture as a way of life has been enhanced by new discoveries and inventions from all around the planet. Settled agricultural villages represented a radically new way of life for human beings, unlike anything that had existed before. Farming meant living permanently in one place. Peoples have fulfilled their nutritional needs by consuming foods produced by domesticated plants and animals. However, living in one spot permanently meant utilizing a relatively small amount of land very intensively over a long period of time, instead of using a large amount of land extensively, as hunter-gatherers did, for brief periods of time (Wikipedia, 2007).
After 10,000 years of this way of life, the human population is still expanding exponentially. In order to fully understand the extent to which this radical change impacted the planet’s food chain it is necessary to consider carefully both advantages and disadvantages of people gained by living off small plots of land and the effects of such a way of life on the environment. Today, there are billions of peoples on the planet, almost all of them supported by agriculture. Any significant change in the size of any one part in the food chain and the rest of the chain is affected. This interdependence within a food chain helps to maintain balance between plants, animal and human populations.
All the way through the 20th century, human communities no matter how sophisticated they had become, they could not ignore the importance of agriculture; to be far from dependable sources of food meant to risk malnutrition, starvation and death. Barbara Kingsolver discusses two important aspects of farming as a way of life: first there was loss of mobility, for “you can’t run away on harvest day”. And second, large families of many children meant more hands to help in the fields. Thus, a tendency toward larger families is built into the new way of life.
Additionally, with the invention of the steam engine and the introduction of the mechanical plow, the industrialization period of modern agriculture began. Inanimate objects, such as mechanical engines replaced human laborers, and burning materials, such as wood, coal, and crude oil, provided the energy to run the fuel injected machines. This marked a decisive turning point of human history (McKibben).
Fast-Forward to 20th Century: from Family Farm to Agribusiness
In 1890 census indicated that 40 percent of U.S. populations lived on farms and food production claimed 50 percent of the nation’s resources. A hundred years later less than 2 percent of the total U.S. population lives on a farm and food cost is less than 12 percent of average consumers’ income. Urban growth and infrastructure development has reduced the amount of prime agricultural land. In two generation North Americans transformed themselves from a rural to an urban nation.
The origins of today’s farm economic model can be traced back to the Great Depression period when farm legislations essentially changed the underlying premise of the role of agriculture in American society. In the 1930s a new course of action ensued, its aim to push agriculture to shift from farm tenancy to ownership. A stream of legislation pushed farming along the same path during the 1960s with a move away from family farming and towards commercialization of the farm. Then came the 1970s’ massive growth of American agricultural participation in the world’s economy, but this growth was not without costs, the 1975 recession, caused by the first world oil crisis, resulted in a wave of bank foreclosures shut down a myriad of small farm operations.
In the 1980s many family-owned farms were in serious financial difficulties, high interests, huge debts, lower crop prices, a shrinking world market, as well as another severe drought ensured a quick removal of crop control from the hands of small farmer. Subsequently, an even more centralized management system based on international trade emerged; this is what many call the industrial food system. Today the food chain is in the hands of a small number of large-scale agricultural industries, the agribusinesses. There are only six companies “Monsanto, DuPont, Mitsui, Aventis, and Dow, which now control 98 percent of the world’s seed sales” (Kingsolver).
By 12,000 years ago at the latest, human populations had spread into most of the livable regions of the globe, including Australia and North and South America. About 10,000 years ago, some of these rapidly evolving bands moved away from their hunting and gathering practices and began to settle down and grow their own food; these settlements were our first agriculturalists. With agriculture human society was forever changed. Villages, towns, cities began to flourish, and so did knowledge, artistic expression, organized religion, and technology. During this era, people learned how to plant seeds, and how to take care of edible plants. Then they learned how to domesticate and breed the animals. Herding animals made life a lot easier because then people wouldn't have to move in order to hunt animals to eat. The men that were earlier hunter-gatherers now became farmers (Wikipedia, 2007).
Agriculture and Modern Food Chain
Over the course of the past 10,000 years, agriculture gradually spread throughout the earth, and eventually became the dominant mode of life in nearly all of the areas of the world inhabited by humans, forming the basis for a new way of life, which we call civilization. Human specialization became important as people were ensuring continued existence by learning new ways to produce and preserve food. Agriculture as a way of life has been enhanced by new discoveries and inventions from all around the planet. Settled agricultural villages represented a radically new way of life for human beings, unlike anything that had existed before. Farming meant living permanently in one place. Peoples have fulfilled their nutritional needs by consuming foods produced by domesticated plants and animals. However, living in one spot permanently meant utilizing a relatively small amount of land very intensively over a long period of time, instead of using a large amount of land extensively, as hunter-gatherers did, for brief periods of time (Wikipedia, 2007).
After 10,000 years of this way of life, the human population is still expanding exponentially. In order to fully understand the extent to which this radical change impacted the planet’s food chain it is necessary to consider carefully both advantages and disadvantages of people gained by living off small plots of land and the effects of such a way of life on the environment. Today, there are billions of peoples on the planet, almost all of them supported by agriculture. Any significant change in the size of any one part in the food chain and the rest of the chain is affected. This interdependence within a food chain helps to maintain balance between plants, animal and human populations.
All the way through the 20th century, human communities no matter how sophisticated they had become, they could not ignore the importance of agriculture; to be far from dependable sources of food meant to risk malnutrition, starvation and death. Barbara Kingsolver discusses two important aspects of farming as a way of life: first there was loss of mobility, for “you can’t run away on harvest day”. And second, large families of many children meant more hands to help in the fields. Thus, a tendency toward larger families is built into the new way of life.
Additionally, with the invention of the steam engine and the introduction of the mechanical plow, the industrialization period of modern agriculture began. Inanimate objects, such as mechanical engines replaced human laborers, and burning materials, such as wood, coal, and crude oil, provided the energy to run the fuel injected machines. This marked a decisive turning point of human history (McKibben).
Fast-Forward to 20th Century: from Family Farm to Agribusiness
In 1890 census indicated that 40 percent of U.S. populations lived on farms and food production claimed 50 percent of the nation’s resources. A hundred years later less than 2 percent of the total U.S. population lives on a farm and food cost is less than 12 percent of average consumers’ income. Urban growth and infrastructure development has reduced the amount of prime agricultural land. In two generation North Americans transformed themselves from a rural to an urban nation.
The origins of today’s farm economic model can be traced back to the Great Depression period when farm legislations essentially changed the underlying premise of the role of agriculture in American society. In the 1930s a new course of action ensued, its aim to push agriculture to shift from farm tenancy to ownership. A stream of legislation pushed farming along the same path during the 1960s with a move away from family farming and towards commercialization of the farm. Then came the 1970s’ massive growth of American agricultural participation in the world’s economy, but this growth was not without costs, the 1975 recession, caused by the first world oil crisis, resulted in a wave of bank foreclosures shut down a myriad of small farm operations.
In the 1980s many family-owned farms were in serious financial difficulties, high interests, huge debts, lower crop prices, a shrinking world market, as well as another severe drought ensured a quick removal of crop control from the hands of small farmer. Subsequently, an even more centralized management system based on international trade emerged; this is what many call the industrial food system. Today the food chain is in the hands of a small number of large-scale agricultural industries, the agribusinesses. There are only six companies “Monsanto, DuPont, Mitsui, Aventis, and Dow, which now control 98 percent of the world’s seed sales” (Kingsolver).
From Urban to Suburb to Exurb
The mechanization of agriculture undeniably brought us many benefits; it freed people of the modern world from manual labor, farmers from the land, and granted people a mobility that expanded human horizons. Coal, oil, natural gas allowed all that we consider normal today to take place, from the making steel and electricity to the invention of chemical fertilizer. These in turn fed all subsequent revolutions in agriculture, transportation, chemistry, and electron-based information (KcGibben). In just few decades the standard of living achieved a one hundred percent growth. KcKibben reminds us that the liberations that resulted from the mechanization of agriculture have brought us many benefits but they have also carried costs; for the most part we have surrendered a fixed identity -- a community, extended family, deep and comforting roots. There is a need for individuals to break, what KcKibben calls “The Spell of Privateness” and move away from the ideal of Hyper-individual.
The pace upon which population growth is taking place around the planet adds another hurdle. According to the United Nations Population Division, over the past two centuries the global population has reached one billion. In 1927, it passed two billion. Sixty years later, in 1987, the world population was five billion, and 12 years later, in October 1999; it passed six billion. The 2006 report states that population is ageing and it is on track to surpass 9 billion persons by 2050. United Nations’ projections state that 60 percent of the world population will be living in urban areas by 2030. Most of that growth will occur in developing nations. An eventual world population of 8-12 billion is expected by the end of the 21st century. It is not clear how this population can be adequately fed and nourished? It is not surprising that many are very concerned about what this means for our future (U.N. Report, 2007).
Population growth is clearly a concern, but so is where these people will decide to live. According to urban planners, the prevailing type of land development sometimes referred to, the exurbs, is neither fully suburban nor fully rural. This type of sprawl is characterized by low-density development, two Americans per acre, which rigorously separates residential dwellers that rely entirely on the automobile transportation, from other land uses. Urban planner J. Barnett links low-density sprawl to the current trends of over consumption of resources, risks to the natural environment, and a loss of community resulting from the time demands imposed by the physical separation of commercial, business, residential, and social land uses. The paving over of some of the nation’s highest quality farmland is leading to the loss of biological diversity and open spaces”.
A Nation addicted to Consumption
Increasing population also means increased quantities of food to be distributed, which increases the amount of trucks used to transport the food, in so doing contributing to traffic congestion and air pollution. Besides food, the other most important commodity in our lives is energy. “Americans are the energy-use champions of all times, requiring twice as much fossil fuel to power each of our lives even compared to citizens of other affluent countries in Western Europe” (McKibben). The statistics are alarming Kingsolver charges, “Americans put almost as much fossil fuel into our refrigerators as our car. Each food item in a typical U.S. meal has traveled and average of 1,500 miles”.
The planet is already buckling under the weight of one America. Each of us uses 6 times as much energy as the average Mexican, 38 times as much as the average Indian, 531 times as much as the man in the Ethiopian street. “The Western economic model, fossil fuel based, auto-centered, throwaway economy is not going to work for China or India” (McKibben).
For Americans the standard of living had achieved a 100 percent growth from the previous century, but not without costs: over consumption of resources, risks to the natural environment, and a loss of community. As the new millennium began, American culture has become fixated with economic growth; a culture of consumerism. The ideology of endless growth has become the predominant organizing ideology for individuals and corporations, for American capitalists and Chinese communists, and for Democrats and Republicans. As population continues to grow in many nations and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet (McKibben).
This fixation with economic growth, coupled with hyper-individualism permeates through most levels of industrial societies. People don’t need each other for anything anymore, and they don’t need to care about one another. For, as long as one has enough money, a person is insulated from depending on those around them. By some surveys, three quarters of Americans confess that they don’t know their next-door neighbor (McKibben).
Mckibben puts in plain words, first-world economies must set a good example; they must lead the way and become less interested in economic growth and more locally rooted. Devolvement should aim first and foremost at durability. For, it is only then that the rest of the world, especially new emerging economic powers such as India and China, will follow.
The pace upon which population growth is taking place around the planet adds another hurdle. According to the United Nations Population Division, over the past two centuries the global population has reached one billion. In 1927, it passed two billion. Sixty years later, in 1987, the world population was five billion, and 12 years later, in October 1999; it passed six billion. The 2006 report states that population is ageing and it is on track to surpass 9 billion persons by 2050. United Nations’ projections state that 60 percent of the world population will be living in urban areas by 2030. Most of that growth will occur in developing nations. An eventual world population of 8-12 billion is expected by the end of the 21st century. It is not clear how this population can be adequately fed and nourished? It is not surprising that many are very concerned about what this means for our future (U.N. Report, 2007).
Population growth is clearly a concern, but so is where these people will decide to live. According to urban planners, the prevailing type of land development sometimes referred to, the exurbs, is neither fully suburban nor fully rural. This type of sprawl is characterized by low-density development, two Americans per acre, which rigorously separates residential dwellers that rely entirely on the automobile transportation, from other land uses. Urban planner J. Barnett links low-density sprawl to the current trends of over consumption of resources, risks to the natural environment, and a loss of community resulting from the time demands imposed by the physical separation of commercial, business, residential, and social land uses. The paving over of some of the nation’s highest quality farmland is leading to the loss of biological diversity and open spaces”.
A Nation addicted to Consumption
Increasing population also means increased quantities of food to be distributed, which increases the amount of trucks used to transport the food, in so doing contributing to traffic congestion and air pollution. Besides food, the other most important commodity in our lives is energy. “Americans are the energy-use champions of all times, requiring twice as much fossil fuel to power each of our lives even compared to citizens of other affluent countries in Western Europe” (McKibben). The statistics are alarming Kingsolver charges, “Americans put almost as much fossil fuel into our refrigerators as our car. Each food item in a typical U.S. meal has traveled and average of 1,500 miles”.
The planet is already buckling under the weight of one America. Each of us uses 6 times as much energy as the average Mexican, 38 times as much as the average Indian, 531 times as much as the man in the Ethiopian street. “The Western economic model, fossil fuel based, auto-centered, throwaway economy is not going to work for China or India” (McKibben).
For Americans the standard of living had achieved a 100 percent growth from the previous century, but not without costs: over consumption of resources, risks to the natural environment, and a loss of community. As the new millennium began, American culture has become fixated with economic growth; a culture of consumerism. The ideology of endless growth has become the predominant organizing ideology for individuals and corporations, for American capitalists and Chinese communists, and for Democrats and Republicans. As population continues to grow in many nations and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet (McKibben).
This fixation with economic growth, coupled with hyper-individualism permeates through most levels of industrial societies. People don’t need each other for anything anymore, and they don’t need to care about one another. For, as long as one has enough money, a person is insulated from depending on those around them. By some surveys, three quarters of Americans confess that they don’t know their next-door neighbor (McKibben).
Mckibben puts in plain words, first-world economies must set a good example; they must lead the way and become less interested in economic growth and more locally rooted. Devolvement should aim first and foremost at durability. For, it is only then that the rest of the world, especially new emerging economic powers such as India and China, will follow.
America’s Food Paradox: Obesity-Hunger
An important choice that we make every day is deciding what to eat. Kingsolver points out that Americans’ desire to move away from manual labor and dirt has created a serious knowledge gap between consumers and producers of food. Ignorance of where our food comes from runs rampant, all the more contributing to problems such as overdependence on fossil fuel, an alarming epidemic of food borne illness, as well as diet-related diseases.
Pollan also directs his attention to the predicament of food choices, he points out that most people will choose price and convenience over nutrition and taste . These days 19% of American meals are eaten in the car. But he warns that “cheaper and ignorance are mutually reinforcing” and the hidden costs it seems that apparently now outweigh the benefits.
The Green Revolution of the 1970s promised food that would be cheaper and available to more people. It is true that food got cheaper, but it was not without costs, “We're a nation with an eating disorder and we know it. The multiple maladies caused by bad eating are taking a toll on our health -- most tragically for our kids, who are predicted to be this country's first generation to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents." (Kingsolver)
Reflecting on the task of preparing a meal Kingsolver comment, it is hard not to marvel at today’s food selection, food is inexpensive, it’s available year-round. Insulated by the apparent abundance of supermarket food Americans ignore a fundamental question, where it the food coming from? Kingsolver rejects the idea that gaining affordability and convenience was a good trade off. She points out that many other aspects must be considered not simply the price-point at the register.
We also need to consider that we have lost food variety that we may possibly never recover; statistics show that modern U.S. consumer now get to eat less than 1 percent of the variety of vegetable grown in the U.S. a century ago. And worldwide, crop ecologist Vandana Shiva points out that humans have eaten up to 80,000 plant species in our history, but recent changes in food production and distribution have drastically reduced our food variety.” Three-quarters of all human food now comes from just eight species, with the field quickly narrowing down to genetically modified corn, soy and canola”.
Pollan also talks about the hidden costs of our food system, and that we must include the obesity-hunger paradox as one of those costs. He points out, that in order to understand the hunger-obesity paradox, one must understand that a significant amount of the corn produced in this country goes into value added products, for example the endless supply of soda and other cheap foods. But, the hunger side of the paradox shows that many of the calories that come from today’s food are empty calories.
Pollan also reports that, our farmers produce so many calories, in fact, that corn is now used not only to feed us, but also to feed our cars in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel. This transformation has been in the makings since the Nixon administration; and while hunger is still a serious issue in many parts of the planet, farmers in the United States have managed to produce 500 additional calories per person every day, already substantially more than we need.
Persistent Food Insecurity
The world produces more food per person today than ever in human history. Yet amid this abundance, in 88 countries, a significant portion of the population continue to suffer from deficient diets, more than 730 million people worldwide did not eat enough to lead fully productive lives. In many nations, agricultural production has increased, food purchasing power has risen, and diets have improved. Conversely, this advancement has been far from even. There are still broad areas on Earth, industrialized and developing countries where increases in food production is undermining the base for future production this against a backdrop of expanding world population, intensifying demands on agricultural resources, and a growing recognition that the industrial food system is not sustainable (U.N. Report, 1985).
Running out of Planet
According to McKibben, the diminishing availability of fossil fuel is not the only limit we face. In fact, it is not even the most important one. Even before we run out of oil, we are running out of planet . “The link between environmental destruction and wealth is deep and long.” He suggests that we ought to consider fossil fuel as playing the same role that “slaves played in early American agriculture – a natural resource that came cheap”. Between 1910 and 1983 energy consumption for agriculture increased 810 percent. The legacy of the Green Revolution of the 1960s is that one hundred percent reliance on cheap energy. Processing, packaging, and distributing food around the nation and world consumes four times the amount of energy, and that forty percent of all truck traffic comes from shuttling of food over long distances (McKibben).
In the spring of 2005 a panel of 1,300 scientists assembled by the United Nations issued a “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” report in which they found that “human actions are depleting the Earth’s natural capital, putting such a strain on the environment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted” (U.N. Report Our Common Future, ch. 2, 1987).
The World Health Organization researchers in 2006 warned that climate change could kill 184 million people in Africa alone before the century is over (McKibben). Even the most conservative predictions of world climatologists anticipate dire conditions. There is consensus among the scientific communities that we will likely see: more severe storms, longer droughts, rise of sea level, melting of permafrost, warmer temperatures. It is now imperative that we re-think our attitudes, beliefs and approaches toward climate change and change the current practices.
Pollan also directs his attention to the predicament of food choices, he points out that most people will choose price and convenience over nutrition and taste . These days 19% of American meals are eaten in the car. But he warns that “cheaper and ignorance are mutually reinforcing” and the hidden costs it seems that apparently now outweigh the benefits.
The Green Revolution of the 1970s promised food that would be cheaper and available to more people. It is true that food got cheaper, but it was not without costs, “We're a nation with an eating disorder and we know it. The multiple maladies caused by bad eating are taking a toll on our health -- most tragically for our kids, who are predicted to be this country's first generation to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents." (Kingsolver)
Reflecting on the task of preparing a meal Kingsolver comment, it is hard not to marvel at today’s food selection, food is inexpensive, it’s available year-round. Insulated by the apparent abundance of supermarket food Americans ignore a fundamental question, where it the food coming from? Kingsolver rejects the idea that gaining affordability and convenience was a good trade off. She points out that many other aspects must be considered not simply the price-point at the register.
We also need to consider that we have lost food variety that we may possibly never recover; statistics show that modern U.S. consumer now get to eat less than 1 percent of the variety of vegetable grown in the U.S. a century ago. And worldwide, crop ecologist Vandana Shiva points out that humans have eaten up to 80,000 plant species in our history, but recent changes in food production and distribution have drastically reduced our food variety.” Three-quarters of all human food now comes from just eight species, with the field quickly narrowing down to genetically modified corn, soy and canola”.
Pollan also talks about the hidden costs of our food system, and that we must include the obesity-hunger paradox as one of those costs. He points out, that in order to understand the hunger-obesity paradox, one must understand that a significant amount of the corn produced in this country goes into value added products, for example the endless supply of soda and other cheap foods. But, the hunger side of the paradox shows that many of the calories that come from today’s food are empty calories.
Pollan also reports that, our farmers produce so many calories, in fact, that corn is now used not only to feed us, but also to feed our cars in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel. This transformation has been in the makings since the Nixon administration; and while hunger is still a serious issue in many parts of the planet, farmers in the United States have managed to produce 500 additional calories per person every day, already substantially more than we need.
Persistent Food Insecurity
The world produces more food per person today than ever in human history. Yet amid this abundance, in 88 countries, a significant portion of the population continue to suffer from deficient diets, more than 730 million people worldwide did not eat enough to lead fully productive lives. In many nations, agricultural production has increased, food purchasing power has risen, and diets have improved. Conversely, this advancement has been far from even. There are still broad areas on Earth, industrialized and developing countries where increases in food production is undermining the base for future production this against a backdrop of expanding world population, intensifying demands on agricultural resources, and a growing recognition that the industrial food system is not sustainable (U.N. Report, 1985).
Running out of Planet
According to McKibben, the diminishing availability of fossil fuel is not the only limit we face. In fact, it is not even the most important one. Even before we run out of oil, we are running out of planet . “The link between environmental destruction and wealth is deep and long.” He suggests that we ought to consider fossil fuel as playing the same role that “slaves played in early American agriculture – a natural resource that came cheap”. Between 1910 and 1983 energy consumption for agriculture increased 810 percent. The legacy of the Green Revolution of the 1960s is that one hundred percent reliance on cheap energy. Processing, packaging, and distributing food around the nation and world consumes four times the amount of energy, and that forty percent of all truck traffic comes from shuttling of food over long distances (McKibben).
In the spring of 2005 a panel of 1,300 scientists assembled by the United Nations issued a “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” report in which they found that “human actions are depleting the Earth’s natural capital, putting such a strain on the environment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted” (U.N. Report Our Common Future, ch. 2, 1987).
The World Health Organization researchers in 2006 warned that climate change could kill 184 million people in Africa alone before the century is over (McKibben). Even the most conservative predictions of world climatologists anticipate dire conditions. There is consensus among the scientific communities that we will likely see: more severe storms, longer droughts, rise of sea level, melting of permafrost, warmer temperatures. It is now imperative that we re-think our attitudes, beliefs and approaches toward climate change and change the current practices.
Our Common Future
Sustainability and Development
Many were asking the question – are the current practices viable? For how long can our communities and planet survive our consumptions of resources and creation of pollution? The United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development in its report Our Common Future in 1987 defined “sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” For some the notion of sustainability meant going back to -- the old way of doing things, while for others who looked at the future with uneasiness, it meant reframing the current concept of economic growth and development in terms of durability and equity (U.N Report, 1987. Our Common Future. ch. 2, 1987).
The concept stresses that there are many natural limits that we are currently denying. A fundamental principal of sustainability is the appreciation of the interdependence of environment, economic and social equity concerns. And it suggests that individuals, businesses, governments ought to explore options that do not sacrifice of the Es for another if we are considering the long-term viability of our economic base. The process of uniformly incorporating these three concerns (economic, environment, and social equity) is often referred to as the three legs of a stool; the metaphor implies that removing even one would lead to instability and imbalance.
In much of the world today, 40 percent of the truck traffic comes from shuttling of food over long distances (McKibben). Re-framing the current fossil-fuel based industrial agricultural in terms of sustainable agriculture could slow down the harmful outcomes associated with two major trends: the declining of hearth’s natural resources and the rising in population and consumption.
Re-thinking Industrial Agricultural
A food system is a process that aims to create a more direct link between the producers (farmers) of food and fiber and the consumers of the food. This system consists of several components, including production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste disposal. A food system can be characterized as being local, regional, national, or global (Mckibben). Improvements in productivity have created benefits for example, increased output, lower prices, convenience, year-round availability, but also problems for instance loss of diversity in crops, nitrate pollution of ground-water, less nutritious food, pesticide residues in food, and soil depletion (McKibben).
In the 1987 report Our Common Future, the World Commission on Environment and Development recommended that productivity increases, in both developed and developing countries, ought to be based on better-controlled application of water and chemicals, as well as on more extensive use of organic fertilizers and non-chemical means of pest control. These alternatives could be promoted only within the framework of agricultural policies that are based on ecological, social, and economic realities (U.N. Report, 1987. Our Common Future. chap. 5).
Bill Vorley of the International institute for Environment and Development , (IIED) also reports on the need for a restructuring of the global agrifood markets. He charges that the continuing process of marginalization of small and mid-sized peasantry and family farming, in both developed and developing countries and the continued land degradation are seriously compromising our future, and these practices must come to an end in order to move toward equitable and sustainable agriculture.
Vorley claims that the root cause of today’s apparent inability to move towards sustainability derived form “the liberalization of agricultural markets and relocation of risks from the state to the individuals, and the shift from producer-driven to buyer driven supply chain”. This means that a customer-oriented doctrine controls the food supply chain from product concept to consumer purchases; this is a doctrine that is measured principally for profitability only. He also speaks of “an urgent need to be realistic about sustainable agriculture, for it will require greater appreciation of where the control lies in the agrifood chain and the rapid shift in balance from the state to the firm”. Vorley remarks that what we have been witnessing is the emergence of a dual economy across the farming world and that in many instances we see “the simultaneous integration and exclusion of communities with respect to agrifood system”.
George Bird director of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture also talks about the fact that in 1993, 15 percent of agricultural enterprises were responsible for 85 percent of the food, feed, and fiber produced on U.S. and he reports that the current structure and technology of the industrial agriculture agribusiness is detrimental to the long-term interest of the nation’s agriculture and natural resources .
Many were asking the question – are the current practices viable? For how long can our communities and planet survive our consumptions of resources and creation of pollution? The United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development in its report Our Common Future in 1987 defined “sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” For some the notion of sustainability meant going back to -- the old way of doing things, while for others who looked at the future with uneasiness, it meant reframing the current concept of economic growth and development in terms of durability and equity (U.N Report, 1987. Our Common Future. ch. 2, 1987).
The concept stresses that there are many natural limits that we are currently denying. A fundamental principal of sustainability is the appreciation of the interdependence of environment, economic and social equity concerns. And it suggests that individuals, businesses, governments ought to explore options that do not sacrifice of the Es for another if we are considering the long-term viability of our economic base. The process of uniformly incorporating these three concerns (economic, environment, and social equity) is often referred to as the three legs of a stool; the metaphor implies that removing even one would lead to instability and imbalance.
In much of the world today, 40 percent of the truck traffic comes from shuttling of food over long distances (McKibben). Re-framing the current fossil-fuel based industrial agricultural in terms of sustainable agriculture could slow down the harmful outcomes associated with two major trends: the declining of hearth’s natural resources and the rising in population and consumption.
Re-thinking Industrial Agricultural
A food system is a process that aims to create a more direct link between the producers (farmers) of food and fiber and the consumers of the food. This system consists of several components, including production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste disposal. A food system can be characterized as being local, regional, national, or global (Mckibben). Improvements in productivity have created benefits for example, increased output, lower prices, convenience, year-round availability, but also problems for instance loss of diversity in crops, nitrate pollution of ground-water, less nutritious food, pesticide residues in food, and soil depletion (McKibben).
In the 1987 report Our Common Future, the World Commission on Environment and Development recommended that productivity increases, in both developed and developing countries, ought to be based on better-controlled application of water and chemicals, as well as on more extensive use of organic fertilizers and non-chemical means of pest control. These alternatives could be promoted only within the framework of agricultural policies that are based on ecological, social, and economic realities (U.N. Report, 1987. Our Common Future. chap. 5).
Bill Vorley of the International institute for Environment and Development , (IIED) also reports on the need for a restructuring of the global agrifood markets. He charges that the continuing process of marginalization of small and mid-sized peasantry and family farming, in both developed and developing countries and the continued land degradation are seriously compromising our future, and these practices must come to an end in order to move toward equitable and sustainable agriculture.
Vorley claims that the root cause of today’s apparent inability to move towards sustainability derived form “the liberalization of agricultural markets and relocation of risks from the state to the individuals, and the shift from producer-driven to buyer driven supply chain”. This means that a customer-oriented doctrine controls the food supply chain from product concept to consumer purchases; this is a doctrine that is measured principally for profitability only. He also speaks of “an urgent need to be realistic about sustainable agriculture, for it will require greater appreciation of where the control lies in the agrifood chain and the rapid shift in balance from the state to the firm”. Vorley remarks that what we have been witnessing is the emergence of a dual economy across the farming world and that in many instances we see “the simultaneous integration and exclusion of communities with respect to agrifood system”.
George Bird director of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture also talks about the fact that in 1993, 15 percent of agricultural enterprises were responsible for 85 percent of the food, feed, and fiber produced on U.S. and he reports that the current structure and technology of the industrial agriculture agribusiness is detrimental to the long-term interest of the nation’s agriculture and natural resources .
A Sustainable Agriculture Model
Defenders of sustainable agriculture, like Brathwaite of Inter-American Institute for Cooperation and Agriculture , (IICA) who wish to see sustainable practices implemented at the local and global level, stress that agriculture must reclaim its rightful place in modern society, as “the bedrock of society and the cornerstone of all economies”.
In order for our food system to be healthy, sustainable and economically viable public policies, local governments, and consumers must emphasize support for local sources of food production and processing; moreover it must encourage and support environmental responsibility, and provide economic stability all within the context of a local or regional area. We must reverse the urban-rural drift and emphasize the importance of stability of farm families, food security and access, community self-sufficiency, and support to varied enterprises.
At the local level, there are many ways that individuals can support a sustainable food system, one can support local farmers markets, community and school gardens, community-supported agriculture (CSA), pick-your-own farms & roadside stands, and choose restaurant that serve dishes that come from local producers. To reduce waste individuals can recycle, reduce consumption, reuse, and compost waste; this is especially important for corporations, individuals and small businesses. A good example of businesses leading the way is the Heine Bro. Coffee shop in Louisville Kentucky, which is now recycling hundreds of pounds of coffee grounds by composting it, then turning into natural fertilizes, and finally selling it to consumers who wish to use natural fertilizers.
Globally crop production is a highly intensive operation in energy consumption, of the 10-20 percent of the fossil fuel energy that is used by agricultural operations, and 40 percent is indirect energy used in the development of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. In order to reduce high pollution levels of water, air, and food there is an urgent need to switch to natural processes whenever possible and conserve resources, minimize waste, and lessen the impact on the environment. This means limited use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock feed additives. More reliance on methods such as crop rotations, animal manures, legumes, mechanical cultivation, mineral bearing rocks to maintain soil fertility and productivity; and more use of natural ways to manage insects, weeds, and other pests. The emphasis is on prevention of problems and using chemical interventions, such as pesticides, as last resorts (U.N. Report, 1987. Our Common Future. chap. 5).
In order for our food system to be healthy, sustainable and economically viable public policies, local governments, and consumers must emphasize support for local sources of food production and processing; moreover it must encourage and support environmental responsibility, and provide economic stability all within the context of a local or regional area. We must reverse the urban-rural drift and emphasize the importance of stability of farm families, food security and access, community self-sufficiency, and support to varied enterprises.
At the local level, there are many ways that individuals can support a sustainable food system, one can support local farmers markets, community and school gardens, community-supported agriculture (CSA), pick-your-own farms & roadside stands, and choose restaurant that serve dishes that come from local producers. To reduce waste individuals can recycle, reduce consumption, reuse, and compost waste; this is especially important for corporations, individuals and small businesses. A good example of businesses leading the way is the Heine Bro. Coffee shop in Louisville Kentucky, which is now recycling hundreds of pounds of coffee grounds by composting it, then turning into natural fertilizes, and finally selling it to consumers who wish to use natural fertilizers.
Globally crop production is a highly intensive operation in energy consumption, of the 10-20 percent of the fossil fuel energy that is used by agricultural operations, and 40 percent is indirect energy used in the development of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. In order to reduce high pollution levels of water, air, and food there is an urgent need to switch to natural processes whenever possible and conserve resources, minimize waste, and lessen the impact on the environment. This means limited use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock feed additives. More reliance on methods such as crop rotations, animal manures, legumes, mechanical cultivation, mineral bearing rocks to maintain soil fertility and productivity; and more use of natural ways to manage insects, weeds, and other pests. The emphasis is on prevention of problems and using chemical interventions, such as pesticides, as last resorts (U.N. Report, 1987. Our Common Future. chap. 5).
November 1, 2007
The importance of community activism.
"Critical self-consciousness means, historically and politically, the creation of an élite of intellectuals. A human mass does not 'distinguish' itself, does not become independent in its own right without, in the widest sense, organising itself: and there is no organisation without intellectuals, that is without organisers and leaders... But the process of creating intellectuals is long and difficult, full of contradictions, advances and retreats, dispersal and regrouping, in which the loyalty of the masses is often sorely tried." (334) Gramsci, Antonio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)