Better ways than Monsanto
- (un)common sense
I have not personally met US ambassador to Nepal, Scott H. DeLisi, but I have heard from many of my friends who have met him that he is a nice man. But let’s have no doubt that, as an ambassador, he is responsible for promoting US interest, and these days US interest is not the same as the interest of most of its citizens. Quite often, its diplomatic, military and economic stations around the world represent the interests of corporations and military institutions. When it comes to the defence and promotion of Monsanto hybrid corn in Nepal with USAID — the US aid agency — money, it is clear which side DeLisi is promoting. Increasing the productivity of Nepal’s farmers is just a ruse. If that is a genuine goal, then far better ways exist.
There were a flurry of negative comments on his Facebook post about Monsanto-USAID tie up, but he seems to have stopped responding to them lately. Was he avoiding them? Or, perhaps, he is a busy person. In one response, though, he suggested that organic farming is well and good for growing vegetables, but cereals are different matter.
He is wrong. If that was the reason he and his government are promoting Monsanto in Nepal, then they have to rethink, scrap the deal with Monsanto and get help from organic producers. Organic farming around the world has led to productivity gains far superior to farming based on hybrid seeds, chemical fertilisers, and pesticides.
In 1981, Rodale Institute, perhaps America’s most respected organic farming research and promotion institute, started a farm system trial comparing the chemical and organic farming systems. It selected corn and soybean in the beginning and added wheat in 2004. Initially started as a research project looking at the effects of transition from chemical to organic farming, it became America’s longest-running farm
system trial project. After 30 years, the report cards are out. In 2011, the results unambiguously showed organic farming systems beat or equally matched chemical farming systems in terms of yields, soil health, productivity of genetic modification of seeds, energy use, economic productivity and green house gas emissions.
In drought years, the organic system produced 31 percent more than the chemical system. If we went by the claims of Monsanto, we would expect that their drought-tolerant seeds would perform well. But, even with the use of drought-tolerant genetically modified (GMO) seed, conventional system lagged far behind the organic system. The GMO seeds produced only 6.7 to 13.3 percent more than the regular seeds used in chemical farming.
In the US, over 70 percent of corn is planted with GMO seeds. That has led to phenomenal use of herbicides. Quite often Monsanto, which produces the GMO seeds, also produces the herbicides for these seeds. The widespread use of herbicides has resulted in dangerous proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds, now commonly called as super-weeds. In Rodale’s farm system trial, crops in organic system tolerated weeds far better than those in chemical farming, while producing equivalent amount of grain.
The better yield in organic farming systems were derived with the use of 45 percent less energy than in the chemical system. Most of the energy in organic system was used for diesel to run the tractors. Most of the energy in chemical system went to the use of nitrogen and diesel. This also meant, organic farming was releasing on average 40 percent less amount of carbon into the atmosphere than the chemical system.
Better yields, better tolerance of weeds and drought and less use of water and other resources was possible because organic farming systems were building healthy soil. While yields from organic systems easily matched or surpassed those from the chemical systems, organic systems built healthy soil over time. Carbon content in the soil, widely considered to be the best indicator of soil health, was increasing in organic farming systems, while it remained the same in chemical system. Increased carbon in soil provide reservoir or plant nutrients, bind soil particles together, lead to better aeration and retain water well. The trial measured the ground water recharge and run off and found that the amount of water percolating through the soil was 15-20 percent higher in organic farming systems than the chemical system.
I am not sure if USAID will look at the report and get help from people at Rodale Institutes instead of Monsanto. We in Nepal should know that DeLisi and USAID Nepal Mission Director’s hands are tied. In January 2010, Monsanto’s vice president, Michael R. Taylor, left his job to join Obama’s food safety office. One year later, on January 28, 2011 during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, stood together with chiefs of Monsanto and Unilever to announce the Forum’s “Realizing a New Vision for Agriculture” initiative. Perhaps, USAID is too enmeshed in deals with the corporate giants to listen to the voices of reason coming from institutes such as Rodale’s. Monsanto is in Nepal not because it has better ways to offer Nepali farmers. It is here to do business. And USAID is helping it. Nepal’s top agricultural bureaucrats are already on junket study tours on USAID’s money. We cannot expect them to take Nepali farmers’ interest seriously unless we put widespread pressure.
There are better ways than Monsanto’s. It’s up to Nepal’s farmers, their allies in agricultural research and teaching institutions, and a broad section of political actors to check this uninvited onslaught. Stakes are very high and we have to act with a
sense of urgency without losing our cool. The truth is on our side, even if money is on Monsanto’s.
Anil Bhattarai anilbhattarai@gmail.com
Posted on: 2011-11-01 09:34
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
