independentsciencenews--2020-09-21--Bill Gates’ Global Agenda and How We Can Resist His War on Life

In March 2015 , Bill Gates showed an image of the coronavirus during a TED Talk and told the audience that it was what the greatest catastrophe of our time would look like .
The real threat to life , he said , is ‘ not missiles , but microbes.
’ When the coronavirus pandemic swept over the earth like a tsunami five years later , he revived the war language , describing the pandemic as ‘ a world war ’ .
‘ The coronavirus pandemic pits all of humanity against the virus , ’ he said .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pandemic is a consequence of war .
A war against life .
The mechanical mind connected to the money machine of extraction has created the illusion of humans as separate from nature , and nature as dead , inert raw material to be exploited .
But , in fact , we are part of the biome .
And we are part of the virome .
The biome and the virome are us .
When we wage war on the biodiversity of our forests , our farms , and in our guts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The health emergency of the coronavirus is inseparable from the health emergency of extinction , the health emergency of biodiversity loss , and the health emergency of the climate crisis .
All of these emergencies are rooted in a mechanistic , militaristic , anthropocentric worldview that considers humans separate from—and superior to—other beings .
Beings we can own , manipulate , and control .
All of these emergencies are rooted in an economic model based on the illusion of limitless growth and limitless greed , which violate planetary boundaries , and destroy the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New diseases arise because a globalized , industrialized , inefficient agriculture invades habitats , destroys ecosystems , and manipulates animals , plants , and other organisms with no respect for their integrity or their health .
We are linked worldwide through the spread of diseases like the coronavirus because we have invaded the homes of other species , manipulated plants and animals for commercial profits and greed , and cultivated monocultures .
As we clear-cut forests , as we turn farms into industrial monocultures that produce toxic , nutritionally empty commodities , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with synthetic chemicals and genetic engineering , and as we perpetuate the illusion that earth and life are raw materials to be exploited for profits , we are indeed connecting .
But instead of connecting on a continuum of health by protecting biodiversity , integrity , and self-organization of all living beings , including humans , we are connected through disease .
According to the International Labour Organization , ‘ 1.6 billion informal economy workers ( representing the most vulnerable in the labour market ) , out of a worldwide total of two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion , have suffered massive damage to their capacity to earn a living .
This is due to lockdown measures and/or because they work in the hardest-hit sectors.
’ According to the World Food Programme , a quarter of a billion additional people will be pushed to hunger and 300,000 could die every day .
These , too , are pandemics that are killing people .
Killing can not be a prescription for saving lives .
Health is about life and living systems .
There is no ‘ life ’ in the paradigm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ilk are promoting and imposing on the entire world .
Gates has created global alliances to impose top-down analysis and prescriptions for health problems .
He gives money to define the problems , and then he uses his influence and money to impose the solutions .
And in the process , he gets richer .
His ‘ funding ’ results in an erasure of democracy and biodiversity , of nature and culture .
His ‘ philanthropy ’ is not just philanthrocapitalism .
It is philanthroimperialism .
The coronavirus pandemic and lockdown have revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduced to objects to be controlled , with our bodies and minds as the new colonies to be invaded .
Empires create colonies , colonies enclose the commons of the indigenous living communities and turn them into sources of raw material to be extracted for profits .
This linear , extractive logic is unable to see the intimate relations that sustain life in the natural world .
It is blind to diversity , cycles of renewal , values of giving and sharing , and the power and potential of self-organising and mutuality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ creates and to the violence it unleashes .
The extended coronavirus lockdown has been a lab experiment for a future without humanity .
On March 26 , 2020 , at a peak of the coronavirus pandemic and in the midst of the lockdown , Microsoft was granted a patent by the World Intellectual Property Organization ( WIPO ) .
Patent WO 060606 declares that ‘ Human Body Activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system….
’ The ‘ body activity ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emitted from the human body , brain activities , body fluid flow , blood flow , organ activity , body movement such as eye movement , facial movement , and muscle movement , as well as any other activities that can be sensed and represented by images , waves , signals , texts , numbers , degrees , or any other information or data .
The patent is an intellectual property claim over our bodies and minds .
In colonialism , colonisers assign themselves the right to take the land and resources of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereignty , and in extreme cases exterminate them .
Patent WO 060606 is a declaration by Microsoft that our bodies and minds are its new colonies .
We are mines of ‘ raw material ’ —the data extracted from our bodies .
Rather than sovereign , spiritual , conscious , intelligent beings making decisions and choices with wisdom and ethical values about the impacts of our actions on the natural and social world of which we are a part , and to which we are inextricably related , we are ‘ users.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without choice in the digital empire .
But that ’ s not the totality of Gates ’ vision .
In fact , it is even more sinister—to colonise the minds , bodies , and spirits of our children before they even have the opportunity to understand what freedom and sovereignty look and feel like , beginning with the most vulnerable .
In May 2020 , Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York announced a partnership with the Gates Foundation to ‘ reinvent education.
’ Cuomo called Gates a visionary and argued that the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we can actually incorporate and advance [ Gates ’ ] ideas…all these buildings , all these physical classrooms—why with all the technology you have ?
’ In fact , Gates has been trying to dismantle the public education system of the United States for two decades .
For him students are mines for data .
That is why the indicators he promotes are attendance , college enrollment , and scores on a math and reading test , because these can be easily quantified and mined .
In reimagining education , children will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they are attentive while they are forced to take classes remotely , alone at home .
The dystopia is one where children never return to schools , do not have a chance to play , do not have friends .
It is a world without society , without relationships , without love and friendship .
As I look to the future in a world of Gates and Tech Barons , I see a humanity that is further polarized into large numbers of ‘ throw away ’ people who have no place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included in the new Empire will be little more than digital slaves .
Or , we can resist .
We can seed another future , deepen our democracies , reclaim our commons , regenerate the earth as living members of a One Earth Family , rich in our diversity and freedom , one in our unity and interconnectedness .
It is a healthier future .
It is one we must fight for .
It is one we must claim .
We stand at a precipice of extinction .
Will we allow our humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autonomous beings to be extinguished by a greed machine that does not know limits and is unable to put a break on its colonisation and destruction ?
Or will we stop the machine and defend our humanity , freedom , and autonomy to protect life on earth ?
The above is excerpted from Vandana Shiva ’ s book Oneness vs. the 1 % : Shattering Illusions , Seeding Freedom ( Chelsea Green Publishing , August 2020 ) and is reprinted with permission from the publisher .
Vandana Shiva is a world-renowned environmental thinker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Forum on Globalisation , and of the Slow Food Movement .
Director of Navdanya and of the Research Foundation for Science , Technology and Ecology , and a tireless crusader for farmers ’ , peasants ’ , and women ’ s rights , she is the author and editor of a score of influential books , among them Making Peace with the Earth ; Soil Not Oil ; Globalisation ’ s New Wars ; Seed Sovereignty , Food Security : Women in the Vanguard ; and Who Really Feeds the World ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1 % ( Chelsea Green Publishing , August 2020 ) .
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks .

By Vandana Shiva
In March 2015, Bill Gates showed an image of the coronavirus during a TED Talk and told the audience that it was what the greatest catastrophe of our time would look like. The real threat to life, he said, is ‘not missiles, but microbes.’ When the coronavirus pandemic swept over the earth like a tsunami five years later, he revived the war language, describing the pandemic as ‘a world war’.
‘The coronavirus pandemic pits all of humanity against the virus,’ he said.
In fact, the pandemic is not a war. The pandemic is a consequence of war. A war against life. The mechanical mind connected to the money machine of extraction has created the illusion of humans as separate from nature, and nature as dead, inert raw material to be exploited. But, in fact, we are part of the biome. And we are part of the virome. The biome and the virome are us. When we wage war on the biodiversity of our forests, our farms, and in our guts, we wage war on ourselves.
The health emergency of the coronavirus is inseparable from the health emergency of extinction, the health emergency of biodiversity loss, and the health emergency of the climate crisis. All of these emergencies are rooted in a mechanistic, militaristic, anthropocentric worldview that considers humans separate from—and superior to—other beings. Beings we can own, manipulate, and control. All of these emergencies are rooted in an economic model based on the illusion of limitless growth and limitless greed, which violate planetary boundaries, and destroy the integrity of ecosystems and individual species.
New diseases arise because a globalized, industrialized, inefficient agriculture invades habitats, destroys ecosystems, and manipulates animals, plants, and other organisms with no respect for their integrity or their health. We are linked worldwide through the spread of diseases like the coronavirus because we have invaded the homes of other species, manipulated plants and animals for commercial profits and greed, and cultivated monocultures. As we clear-cut forests, as we turn farms into industrial monocultures that produce toxic, nutritionally empty commodities, as our diets become degraded through industrial processing with synthetic chemicals and genetic engineering, and as we perpetuate the illusion that earth and life are raw materials to be exploited for profits, we are indeed connecting. But instead of connecting on a continuum of health by protecting biodiversity, integrity, and self-organization of all living beings, including humans, we are connected through disease.
According to the International Labour Organization, ‘1.6 billion informal economy workers (representing the most vulnerable in the labour market), out of a worldwide total of two billion and a global workforce of 3.3 billion, have suffered massive damage to their capacity to earn a living. This is due to lockdown measures and/or because they work in the hardest-hit sectors.’ According to the World Food Programme, a quarter of a billion additional people will be pushed to hunger and 300,000 could die every day. These, too, are pandemics that are killing people. Killing cannot be a prescription for saving lives.
Health is about life and living systems. There is no ‘life’ in the paradigm of health that Bill Gates and his ilk are promoting and imposing on the entire world. Gates has created global alliances to impose top-down analysis and prescriptions for health problems. He gives money to define the problems, and then he uses his influence and money to impose the solutions. And in the process, he gets richer. His ‘funding’ results in an erasure of democracy and biodiversity, of nature and culture. His ‘philanthropy’ is not just philanthrocapitalism. It is philanthroimperialism.
The coronavirus pandemic and lockdown have revealed even more clearly how we are being reduced to objects to be controlled, with our bodies and minds as the new colonies to be invaded. Empires create colonies, colonies enclose the commons of the indigenous living communities and turn them into sources of raw material to be extracted for profits. This linear, extractive logic is unable to see the intimate relations that sustain life in the natural world. It is blind to diversity, cycles of renewal, values of giving and sharing, and the power and potential of self-organising and mutuality. It is blind to the waste it creates and to the violence it unleashes. The extended coronavirus lockdown has been a lab experiment for a future without humanity.
On March 26, 2020, at a peak of the coronavirus pandemic and in the midst of the lockdown, Microsoft was granted a patent by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Patent WO 060606 declares that ‘Human Body Activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system….’
The ‘body activity’ that Microsoft wants to mine includes radiation emitted from the human body, brain activities, body fluid flow, blood flow, organ activity, body movement such as eye movement, facial movement, and muscle movement, as well as any other activities that can be sensed and represented by images, waves, signals, texts, numbers, degrees, or any other information or data.
The patent is an intellectual property claim over our bodies and minds. In colonialism, colonisers assign themselves the right to take the land and resources of indigenous people, extinguish their cultures and sovereignty, and in extreme cases exterminate them. Patent WO 060606 is a declaration by Microsoft that our bodies and minds are its new colonies. We are mines of ‘raw material’—the data extracted from our bodies. Rather than sovereign, spiritual, conscious, intelligent beings making decisions and choices with wisdom and ethical values about the impacts of our actions on the natural and social world of which we are a part, and to which we are inextricably related, we are ‘users.’ A ‘user’ is a consumer without choice in the digital empire.
But that’s not the totality of Gates’ vision. In fact, it is even more sinister—to colonise the minds, bodies, and spirits of our children before they even have the opportunity to understand what freedom and sovereignty look and feel like, beginning with the most vulnerable.
In May 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York announced a partnership with the Gates Foundation to ‘reinvent education.’ Cuomo called Gates a visionary and argued that the pandemic has created ‘a moment in history when we can actually incorporate and advance [Gates’] ideas…all these buildings, all these physical classrooms—why with all the technology you have?’
In fact, Gates has been trying to dismantle the public education system of the United States for two decades. For him students are mines for data. That is why the indicators he promotes are attendance, college enrollment, and scores on a math and reading test, because these can be easily quantified and mined. In reimagining education, children will be monitored through surveillance systems to check if they are attentive while they are forced to take classes remotely, alone at home. The dystopia is one where children never return to schools, do not have a chance to play, do not have friends. It is a world without society, without relationships, without love and friendship.
As I look to the future in a world of Gates and Tech Barons, I see a humanity that is further polarized into large numbers of ‘throw away’ people who have no place in the new Empire. Those who are included in the new Empire will be little more than digital slaves.
Or, we can resist. We can seed another future, deepen our democracies, reclaim our commons, regenerate the earth as living members of a One Earth Family, rich in our diversity and freedom, one in our unity and interconnectedness. It is a healthier future. It is one we must fight for. It is one we must claim.
We stand at a precipice of extinction. Will we allow our humanity as living, conscious, intelligent, autonomous beings to be extinguished by a greed machine that does not know limits and is unable to put a break on its colonisation and destruction? Or will we stop the machine and defend our humanity, freedom, and autonomy to protect life on earth?
The above is excerpted from Vandana Shiva’s book Oneness vs. the 1%: Shattering Illusions, Seeding Freedom (Chelsea Green Publishing, August 2020) and is reprinted with permission from the publisher.
Vandana Shiva is a world-renowned environmental thinker and activist, a leader in the International Forum on Globalisation, and of the Slow Food Movement. Director of Navdanya and of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and a tireless crusader for farmers’, peasants’, and women’s rights, she is the author and editor of a score of influential books, among them Making Peace with the Earth; Soil Not Oil; Globalisation’s New Wars; Seed Sovereignty, Food Security: Women in the Vanguard; and Who Really Feeds the World?. Her latest book is Oneness vs the 1% (Chelsea Green Publishing, August 2020).
Editor’s note. We welcome comments and information about the subject of this article. However, please note that the “reply” function in the comments section is not working for people without high level access to the website. There are two possible solutions for readers wanting to reply to specific comments:
1) Enter your comment but name the commenter you are responding to (if necessary with the date of their comment). Or,
2) Mail your comment to the editor: [email protected] and they will post it as a reply. Please be sure to say who/what you are replying to.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.


independentsciencenews--2020-10-15--Transforming our Food Systems Is the Only Way to Nourish the World

The way we produce our food is under pressure like never before .
And with the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic now posing the greatest challenges to nourishing the expanding global population , our precious and fragile food system is fast reaching breaking point .
So do we intensify the current system of farming or is there a better way ?
Much criticism has been levelled at alternative approaches to conventional farming , for example – that they can ’ t produce enough food for 10 billion people by 2050 , they ’ re not always climate friendly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food .
Writing in a new book , Transformation of our food systems , published by sustainable development organisation Biovision and German farming charity Foundation on Future Farming , scientists and food security experts refute these criticisms .
Agroecology – a farming philosophy and approach that works for nature and people – they say , can nourish the world , fight climate change and help solve the global food security crisis .
Importantly , the book also builds on the first global UN-led work on food security , the International Assessment of Agricultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( IAASTD ) report .
Published in 2009 , the report highlighted the urgent need for greater resilience in order to sustain future food supplies .
It even warned that our food system would not withstand a global pandemic , and informed many of the UN ’ s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals .
Over a decade later , there is increasing awareness of the fundamental need for a sustainable food system .
Now , ahead of the Committee on World Food Security ( CFS ) and the UN ’ s Food System Summit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world moves decisively towards a better food future , informed by science-based targets .
Understanding the need for change Industrial agriculture is exceeding the planet ’ s natural limits .
Its focus on short-term economic growth and heavy reliance on synthetic chemicals has a profound , adverse impact on the climate and living systems we need to survive .
Food production is now responsible for 21-37 % of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions .
Of the 6,000 plant species cultivated for food , just nine account for 66 % of total crop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplies to considerable risk .
And as more forests are cleared for cattle , soy beans and oil palms , for example , biodiversity loss is reaching a global crisis .
There are serious human consequences too .
At least 690 million [ 2 ] people suffer from food insecurity , and ultra-processed food is leading to major health issues including obesity and diabetes , placing a significant strain on health systems .
“ Our current food system is undermining our ability to produce food in the future , ” says Hans Herren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders must embrace the transformation of our food systems as the most powerful way to drive change , eliminate under and over nutrition and social inequality , and build climate resilience by respecting planetary boundaries.
” Agroecology is a holistic , inclusive system that respects nature and seeks to take only what we need .
This progressive , regenerative farming philosophy is founded on science , knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines , as well as technologies and innovations , and centres around producing food in a way that is environmentally sound , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In parallel , it helps to improve people ’ s health through healthier diets , empowers women farmers and workers and strengthens rural livelihoods .
It is also accessible to small-scale and family farmers , who produce at least 80 % of the world ’ s food ( by value ) [ 3 ] , and seeks to value and include indigenous and traditional knowledge .
And it is rapidly gathering momentum worldwide .
“ In the race to the bottom on price , it ’ s smallholder farmers who suffer the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expert Prof. Molly Anderson .
“ A shift to lower cost agroecology would provide more rural jobs and enable young people to continue farming the land their families have tended for generations.
” In rural Tanzania , Janet Maro , Executive Director of the Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania ( SAT ) organisation , farms a variety of crops – maize , sunflower and sorghum , as well as cassava – on 20 hectares of land .
In between these crops , she plants beans and peas , crops that help to add nitrogen ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to the soil .
Together with compost , these legume crops cover the surface of the soil ( reducing evaporation ) and help to improve soil health , increasing water retention .
Maro is far from the only woman involved .
60 % of farmers involved in SAT are women , and through the scheme , they have also diversified to grow organic vegetables , herbs and spices that are sold in local shops .
“ The diversity of crops we grow not only raises crop quality and yields , it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Maro .
“ With the improved income , farmers can invest more in health and education for their families.
” Indeed , some 30 % of farms around the world are estimated to have redesigned the way they grow crops around agroecological principles , with a real groundswell of activity at the grassroots level .
However , research and training in this area has slowed down over the past ten years , representing only 14 % of agricultural aid in sub-Saharan Africa in 2017 [ 4 ] .
Significantly more research and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansion , Biovision finds .
“ Sustainably produced food can nourish the world , but our diet has to change , ” says nutrition and obesity expert Prof. Boyd Swinburn .
“ For a smarter use of land and healthier , thriving populations , we must move away from monocultures and industrially-produced dairy and beef to more plant-based and whole foods.
” In 2019 , the EAT-Lancet Commission invited 37 scientists from 16 countries to identify what it would take to create a diet that would be good for people and the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Planetary Health Diet ’ would mean doubling the consumption of healthy foods such as fruits , vegetables , legumes and nuts , and a more than 50 % reduction in global consumption of less healthy foods such as added sugars and red meat .
[ 5 ] To achieve this healthier , more diverse diet , the Commission recommends transformative growing practices to reduce yield gaps ( by at least 75 % ) .
For example , in Zambia ’ s Luangwa Valley , social enterprise Community Markets for Conservation ( COMACO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers in 80 co-operatives in adopting sustainable , climate-friendly practices , while providing alternative livelihood skills for illegal wildlife poachers .
Like Maro , they plant legume food crops such as soy and ground nuts to improve soil health .
They also rotate their crops to keep their fields productive , and plant native Gliricidia trees alongside their crops to add more nutrients to the soil and naturally repel pests .
This approach has improved maize yields by two to three times over three years ( compared to conventional practices ) , improving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % .
The trees ’ leaves also form the basis of organic compost , further avoiding the need for chemical fertiliser .
COMACO pays farmers a premium for their crops and helps to expand their access to markets – turning produce into saleable commodities and marketing them across the country through its own ‘ It ’ s Wild !
’ brand .
The farmers ’ richer soils and increased yields also help to boost local and national food security .
In 2019 , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop global warming [ 6 ] .
Yet controversy remains surrounding the climate impacts of more sustainable solutions .
Agroecology can play an important role in creating a lower carbon food system .
Its focus on soil health is also a natural climate solution , with healthy soils helping to capture and keep carbon in the ground .
And a 2020 Biovision-FAO study demonstrates that agroecology also builds climate resilience .
Janet Maro explains : “ I ’ ve experienced far fewer crop losses in heavy rains than farmers using conventional practices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crops are more able to withstand periods of prolonged drought.
” In India , the Zero Budget Natural Farming initiative , which is on track to reach 1 million farmers by the end of 2020 , uses ‘ excess resources ’ such as crop residues or manure to nourish the soil .
Farmers learn to coat seeds in beneficial microbes , and use biological , locally available materials such as cow dung to promote soil fertility , while improving water retention and reducing the need for irrigation .
Where possible , ZBNF farmers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing the level of interaction between different plant and animal species , and helping to promote a flourishing environment for crops .
Farmers can even be rewarded for protecting their forests through schemes such as the REDD+ carbon crediting scheme .
COMACO protects more than 1,000,000 hectares of land in this way , with 228,000 tonnes of CO emission reductions recorded in the first period alone , resulting in $ 490,000 paid to the participating chiefdoms to reinvest in their farms and communities .
“ Cheap , nutrient-poor food is a false economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Foundation on Future Farming .
“ The low cost of production is achieved to the detriment of people and the environment .
Healthier foods must become more accessible and affordable.
” Indeed , the global costs of repairing damage to health and the environment are estimated at $ 12 trillion annually , and are projected to rise to $ 16 trillion by 2050 .
“ We urgently need to change the way we prioritise the outcomes of agriculture , ” says Swinburn .
“ We must think systemically – shifting away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per hectare , and adopting a more holistic system that leads to good health , environmental sustainability , nutritional equity and prosperity.
” In ‘ Transformation of our Food Systems ’ , food and environment specialist Nadine Azzu recommends one such approach .
In 2018 , she contributed to a new framework created by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food ( TEEBAgriFood ) , which values the contribution of natural resources and the impacts of production on nature , together with health and socio-economic impacts , including employment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear evidence of the significant and quantifiable costs to people and planet of industrial , chemical-intensive agriculture , ” explains Dr Marcia Ishii-Eiteman , senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network .
“ In contrast , agroecology not only avoids these costs but provides measurable benefits including healthy soils , clean water , conservation of pollinators and natural predators , thriving rural economies , better health and greater resilience.
” At a consumer level , the radical transparency offered by true cost accounting will be a fundamental part of shifting behaviours and attitudes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats posed by biodiversity and climate change .
For example , sustainable food distributor EOSTA embraces true cost accounting to build transparent relationships with stakeholders .
It also provides retailers and consumers with direct access to the producer as well as their ecological and social impact , through its Nature & More website .
Changing consumer attitudes have been heightened by the Covid-19 outbreak .
Some 55 % of Americans would be willing to eat more plant-based meat alternatives [ 7 ] .
Ecovia reports sales increases of more 40 % among some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Soil Association reporting 50 % growth in the UK organic market in the past ten years .
“ The food and agricultural system has become the single most important lever to address climate change and biodiversity loss and meet the goals of the SDGs and Paris Agreement as well as the Convention on Biodiversity , ” concludes Haerlin .
“ A wholesale institutional change is required at the government level to support independent , credible agricultural and food system research that informs clear guidance for consumers and sound advice for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to new practices , ” explains Herren .
This focus on research , capacity-building and knowledge-sharing is vital .
“ The soil microbiome will need time to adjust to more natural methods after years of synthetic chemicals , ” explains Anderson .
“ This means helping farmers to overcome the knowledge and income gaps while the land is adjusting.
” “ Fundamentally , we must rebalance power in the food system , ” adds Ishii-Eiteman .
“ This can be done by reversing trends in corporate consolidation and dominance over public policy decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict competition rules with rights-based policies is integral to protecting the rights of farmers , women , indigenous people and other vulnerable groups.
” “ Politicians must start to incorporate health , the environment and social equality within economic thinking , undeterred by commercial lobbies ” says Swinburn .
“ These progressive actors will be the winners.
” Meaningful change will also require a complete shift in subsidies , away from conventional agriculture and towards agroecological research and innovation .
“ People must have sovereignty over the food they eat and produce , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a democratic movement towards a better way of life in which we are all empowered by greater knowledge over how and where our food is produced.
” “ The future for farmers is bright , ” says Maro .
“ I ’ ve seen how agroecology has transformed farmers ’ lives and in inspired others to take part .
My message is that everyone – governments and individuals – should look at the benefits of this way of farming and create space for this evolution in policy , development aid and research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthy food for the growing global population.
” For further information or to download the book , please visit globalagriculture.org/transformation .
About Transformation of our Food Systems Transformation of our food systems – the making of a paradigm shift was written by a team of 40 international experts to support governments , NGOs and the wider public as they make vital choices that impact the future direction of food production .
It has been published ahead of major food security talks including the UN Committee on World Food Security ( CFS ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In particular , the book describes major food production trends and impacts since the IAASTD report in 2009 , and seeks to illustrate , from a variety of perspectives , that agroecology could be a fundamental pathway to redesign food production systems in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic .
• Food production is now responsible for 21-37 % of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions • Livestock alone accounts 14.5 % of emissions , more than the global transport system • In 2014 , the UN ’ s Food and Agriculture Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is taken to restore the health of our soils , the world may have just 60 harvests left .
• Better soil management could boost the carbon stored in the top layer of the soil by up to 1.85 gigatonnes annually [ 8 ] .
• Of the 6,000 plant species cultivated for food , just nine account for 66 % of total crop production .
• 690 million people suffer from undernourishment , and Oxfam predicts that 12,000 people could die per day by the end of 2020 as a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] 2020 survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change and the Earth Day Network If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks .

by Katharine Earley
The way we produce our food is under pressure like never before. And with the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic now posing the greatest challenges to nourishing the expanding global population, our precious and fragile food system is fast reaching breaking point.
So do we intensify the current system of farming or is there a better way? Much criticism has been levelled at alternative approaches to conventional farming, for example – that they can’t produce enough food for 10 billion people by 2050, they’re not always climate friendly, and consumers reject the cost of sustainable food.
Writing in a new book, Transformation of our food systems, published by sustainable development organisation Biovision and German farming charity Foundation on Future Farming, scientists and food security experts refute these criticisms. Agroecology – a farming philosophy and approach that works for nature and people – they say, can nourish the world, fight climate change and help solve the global food security crisis.
Importantly, the book also builds on the first global UN-led work on food security, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report. Published in 2009, the report highlighted the urgent need for greater resilience in order to sustain future food supplies. It even warned that our food system would not withstand a global pandemic, and informed many of the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.
Over a decade later, there is increasing awareness of the fundamental need for a sustainable food system. Now, ahead of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and the UN’s Food System Summit in 2021, it is vital that the world moves decisively towards a better food future, informed by science-based targets.
Understanding the need for change
Industrial agriculture is exceeding the planet’s natural limits. Its focus on short-term economic growth and heavy reliance on synthetic chemicals has a profound, adverse impact on the climate and living systems we need to survive. Food production is now responsible for 21-37% of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Of the 6,000 plant species cultivated for food, just nine account for 66% of total crop production [1], exposing food supplies to considerable risk. And as more forests are cleared for cattle, soy beans and oil palms, for example, biodiversity loss is reaching a global crisis.
There are serious human consequences too. At least 690 million [2] people suffer from food insecurity, and ultra-processed food is leading to major health issues including obesity and diabetes, placing a significant strain on health systems.
“Our current food system is undermining our ability to produce food in the future,” says Hans Herren, founder of Biovision. “World leaders must embrace the transformation of our food systems as the most powerful way to drive change, eliminate under and over nutrition and social inequality, and build climate resilience by respecting planetary boundaries.”
What is agroecology?
Agroecology is a holistic, inclusive system that respects nature and seeks to take only what we need. This progressive, regenerative farming philosophy is founded on science, knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines, as well as technologies and innovations, and centres around producing food in a way that is environmentally sound, supports greater biodiversity and protects the climate. In parallel, it helps to improve people’s health through healthier diets, empowers women farmers and workers and strengthens rural livelihoods. It is also accessible to small-scale and family farmers, who produce at least 80% of the world’s food (by value) [3], and seeks to value and include indigenous and traditional knowledge. And it is rapidly gathering momentum worldwide.
“In the race to the bottom on price, it’s smallholder farmers who suffer the most,” says sustainable food systems expert Prof. Molly Anderson. “A shift to lower cost agroecology would provide more rural jobs and enable young people to continue farming the land their families have tended for generations.”
In rural Tanzania, Janet Maro, Executive Director of the Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT) organisation, farms a variety of crops – maize, sunflower and sorghum, as well as cassava – on 20 hectares of land. In between these crops, she plants beans and peas, crops that help to add nitrogen (which is fundamental to healthy plant growth) to the soil. Together with compost, these legume crops cover the surface of the soil (reducing evaporation) and help to improve soil health, increasing water retention.
Maro is far from the only woman involved. 60% of farmers involved in SAT are women, and through the scheme, they have also diversified to grow organic vegetables, herbs and spices that are sold in local shops.
“The diversity of crops we grow not only raises crop quality and yields, it also improves nutrition among local households,” says Maro. “With the improved income, farmers can invest more in health and education for their families.”
Indeed, some 30% of farms around the world are estimated to have redesigned the way they grow crops around agroecological principles, with a real groundswell of activity at the grassroots level. However, research and training in this area has slowed down over the past ten years, representing only 14% of agricultural aid in sub-Saharan Africa in 2017 [4]. Significantly more research and funding are urgently needed to support further expansion, Biovision finds.
Agroecology as a powerful lever for food security
“Sustainably produced food can nourish the world, but our diet has to change,” says nutrition and obesity expert Prof. Boyd Swinburn. “For a smarter use of land and healthier, thriving populations, we must move away from monocultures and industrially-produced dairy and beef to more plant-based and whole foods.”
In 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission invited 37 scientists from 16 countries to identify what it would take to create a diet that would be good for people and the environment, supported by science-based targets. The ‘Planetary Health Diet’ would mean doubling the consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, and a more than 50% reduction in global consumption of less healthy foods such as added sugars and red meat. [5] To achieve this healthier, more diverse diet, the Commission recommends transformative growing practices to reduce yield gaps (by at least 75%).
For example, in Zambia’s Luangwa Valley, social enterprise Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) is supporting more than 179,000 smallholder farmers in 80 co-operatives in adopting sustainable, climate-friendly practices, while providing alternative livelihood skills for illegal wildlife poachers. Like Maro, they plant legume food crops such as soy and ground nuts to improve soil health. They also rotate their crops to keep their fields productive, and plant native Gliricidia trees alongside their crops to add more nutrients to the soil and naturally repel pests. This approach has improved maize yields by two to three times over three years (compared to conventional practices), improving farmers’ incomes by up to 450%. The trees’ leaves also form the basis of organic compost, further avoiding the need for chemical fertiliser.
COMACO pays farmers a premium for their crops and helps to expand their access to markets – turning produce into saleable commodities and marketing them across the country through its own ‘It’s Wild!’ brand. The farmers’ richer soils and increased yields also help to boost local and national food security.
Building climate resilience
In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that we must change food production if we are to stop global warming [6]. Yet controversy remains surrounding the climate impacts of more sustainable solutions. Agroecology can play an important role in creating a lower carbon food system. Its focus on soil health is also a natural climate solution, with healthy soils helping to capture and keep carbon in the ground. And a 2020 Biovision-FAO study demonstrates that agroecology also builds climate resilience.
Janet Maro explains: “I’ve experienced far fewer crop losses in heavy rains than farmers using conventional practices,” she says. “And my crops are more able to withstand periods of prolonged drought.”
In India, the Zero Budget Natural Farming initiative, which is on track to reach 1 million farmers by the end of 2020, uses ‘excess resources’ such as crop residues or manure to nourish the soil. Farmers learn to coat seeds in beneficial microbes, and use biological, locally available materials such as cow dung to promote soil fertility, while improving water retention and reducing the need for irrigation.
Where possible, ZBNF farmers also integrate trees within their land, increasing the level of interaction between different plant and animal species, and helping to promote a flourishing environment for crops.
Farmers can even be rewarded for protecting their forests through schemes such as the REDD+ carbon crediting scheme. COMACO protects more than 1,000,000 hectares of land in this way, with 228,000 tonnes of CO 2 emission reductions recorded in the first period alone, resulting in $490,000 paid to the participating chiefdoms to reinvest in their farms and communities.
The true cost of food
“Cheap, nutrient-poor food is a false economy,” explains Benny Haerlin, of the Foundation on Future Farming. “The low cost of production is achieved to the detriment of people and the environment. Healthier foods must become more accessible and affordable.”
Indeed, the global costs of repairing damage to health and the environment are estimated at $12 trillion annually, and are projected to rise to $16 trillion by 2050.
“We urgently need to change the way we prioritise the outcomes of agriculture,” says Swinburn. “We must think systemically – shifting away from the historical focus on productivity and dollars per hectare, and adopting a more holistic system that leads to good health, environmental sustainability, nutritional equity and prosperity.”
In ‘Transformation of our Food Systems’, food and environment specialist Nadine Azzu recommends one such approach. In 2018, she contributed to a new framework created by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food (TEEBAgriFood), which values the contribution of natural resources and the impacts of production on nature, together with health and socio-economic impacts, including employment.
“True cost accounting provides us with clear evidence of the significant and quantifiable costs to people and planet of industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture,” explains Dr Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network. “In contrast, agroecology not only avoids these costs but provides measurable benefits including healthy soils, clean water, conservation of pollinators and natural predators, thriving rural economies, better health and greater resilience.”
At a consumer level, the radical transparency offered by true cost accounting will be a fundamental part of shifting behaviours and attitudes – and raising awareness of the existential threats posed by biodiversity and climate change. For example, sustainable food distributor EOSTA embraces true cost accounting to build transparent relationships with stakeholders. It also provides retailers and consumers with direct access to the producer as well as their ecological and social impact, through its Nature & More website.
Changing consumer attitudes have been heightened by the Covid-19 outbreak. Some 55% of Americans would be willing to eat more plant-based meat alternatives [7]. Ecovia reports sales increases of more 40% among some organic food stores in France in 2020, and the Soil Association reporting 50% growth in the UK organic market in the past ten years.
Looking ahead
“The food and agricultural system has become the single most important lever to address climate change and biodiversity loss and meet the goals of the SDGs and Paris Agreement as well as the Convention on Biodiversity,” concludes Haerlin.
A major focus on research and knowledge-sharing
“A wholesale institutional change is required at the government level to support independent, credible agricultural and food system research that informs clear guidance for consumers and sound advice for farmers and farming communities as they transition to new practices,” explains Herren.
This focus on research, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing is vital. “The soil microbiome will need time to adjust to more natural methods after years of synthetic chemicals,” explains Anderson. “This means helping farmers to overcome the knowledge and income gaps while the land is adjusting.”
Harnessing progressive policy to catalyse change
“Fundamentally, we must rebalance power in the food system,” adds Ishii-Eiteman. “This can be done by reversing trends in corporate consolidation and dominance over public policy decisions. Similarly, implementing fair trade and strict competition rules with rights-based policies is integral to protecting the rights of farmers, women, indigenous people and other vulnerable groups.”
“Politicians must start to incorporate health, the environment and social equality within economic thinking, undeterred by commercial lobbies” says Swinburn. “These progressive actors will be the winners.”
Meaningful change will also require a complete shift in subsidies, away from conventional agriculture and towards agroecological research and innovation.
People must demand better
“People must have sovereignty over the food they eat and produce,” concludes Haerlin. “Agroecology is a democratic movement towards a better way of life in which we are all empowered by greater knowledge over how and where our food is produced.”
“The future for farmers is bright,” says Maro. “I’ve seen how agroecology has transformed farmers’ lives and in inspired others to take part. My message is that everyone – governments and individuals – should look at the benefits of this way of farming and create space for this evolution in policy, development aid and research. This is how we’ll provide healthy food for the growing global population.”
For further information or to download the book, please visit globalagriculture.org/transformation.
About Transformation of our Food Systems
Transformation of our food systems – the making of a paradigm shift was written by a team of 40 international experts to support governments, NGOs and the wider public as they make vital choices that impact the future direction of food production. It has been published ahead of major food security talks including the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and UN’s 2021 Food System Summit. In particular, the book describes major food production trends and impacts since the IAASTD report in 2009, and seeks to illustrate, from a variety of perspectives, that agroecology could be a fundamental pathway to redesign food production systems in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Food system statistics
Food production is now responsible for 21-37% of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions
Livestock alone accounts 14.5% of emissions, more than the global transport system
In 2014, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that unless action is taken to restore the health of our soils, the world may have just 60 harvests left.
Better soil management could boost the carbon stored in the top layer of the soil by up to 1.85 gigatonnes annually [8].
Of the 6,000 plant species cultivated for food, just nine account for 66% of total crop production.
690 million people suffer from undernourishment, and Oxfam predicts that 12,000 people could die per day by the end of 2020 as a result of hunger linked to COVID-19.
[1] UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2019
[2] UN Food and Agriculture Organization http://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/online/ca9692en.html#chapter-executive_summary
[3] UN FAO State of Food and Agriculture, 2014
[4] Biovision and IPES Money Flows Report, 2020
[5] Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems, 2019
[6] Climate Change and Land Use, IPCC, 2019
[7] 2020 survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change and the Earth Day Network
[8] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15794-8
Katharine Earley is a sustainability writer,
First published: www.globalagriculture.org/transformation
Editor’s note. We welcome comments and information about the subject of this article. However, please note that the “reply” function in the comments section is not working for people without high level access to the website. There are two possible solutions for readers wanting to reply to specific comments:
1) Enter your comment but name the commenter you are responding to (if necessary with the date of their comment). Or,
2) Mail your comment to the editor: [email protected] and they will post it as a reply. Please be sure to say who/what you are replying to.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.


independentsciencenews--2020-10-26--Why We Need a Small Farm Future

Why We Need a Small Farm Future

By Chris Smaje The palm civet is a small omnivorous mammal of Indonesia and other parts of tropical Asia .
Emerging from its forest home onto coffee plantations , it ’ s able to sense the finest coffee fruits of perfect ripeness .
Eating them , it digests the pulp and excretes the beans , adding a musky scent to them from its anal glands .
In the 1990s , Indonesian kopi luwak – civet coffee , made from coffee beans that had passed through a civet ’ s digestive tract – became a new luxury commodity among wealthy coffee-lovers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , local producers cashed in on the demand by capturing and caging wild civets , force-feeding them coffee beans and selling the produce as cut-price kopi luwak .
Though cheaper , the resulting coffee lacked the quality of the original conferred by the civet ’ s discerning nose , and came at the expense of ecological and animal welfare ( 1 ) .
We live in a world of trade-offs .
If you want genuine kopi luwak of good quality and low environmental impact you have to pay someone to comb through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your behalf .
Humans can simulate the process and produce a similar product at lower cost , but it ’ s not the same .
It may sometimes be possible to find genuine trade-off free , win-win improvements .
But with most things , including kopi luwak , and with agriculture in general , there are trade-offs .
Improve on price and you lower animal welfare .
Increase the yield and you also increase human labour , fossil fuels , or downstream pollution .
And so on .
Whether the cost of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value judgement that different people will weigh differently .
But not everyone ’ s voice is heard , especially when the costs are offloaded onto the future .
In our bid to provide cheap food to our human multitudes , the trade-off is that a lot of people end up eating shit – figuratively and , as we ’ ve just seen , sometimes literally .
But our culture is drawn to a narrative of constant progress – a narrative that compels us to avert our attention from this possibility raised by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ solutions , ’ only trade-offs .
There are different ways of dealing with troublesome trade-offs or , in the words of futurologist Peter Frase , of ‘ loving our monsters ’ .
If human actions are driving pollinators to extinction , Frase suggests we ‘ deepen our engagement with nature ’ by developing robotic pseudo-bees to do the job instead .
I won ’ t dwell here on how fanciful that is , but I will suggest a wholly different ‘ monster ’ we could choose to love if we so wished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use poisons that kill bees , and instead favours more complex biological interventions , including more human labour .
We could learn to love the immediate work in acting on the natural world as much as the mediated work of developing machines to do it .
And we could also love the limits to action imposed by nature as much as we love to transcend them .
An obstacle to that kind of love is the narrative of progress I mentioned .
Adopting low-tech , labour-intensive approaches to solving a problem or meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labour-substituting approaches is considered regressive , a nostalgic turning back of the clock , as if a historical ratchet prevents us from doing anything in the future that looks like things we did in the past .
Actually , there is a ratchet that works like this – the capitalist political economy .
The mistake we often make is to suppose that this ratchet is some implacable force of nature rather than just a particular way of organising society , itself with a history that may someday end .
These two monsters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a divide in contemporary politics as old schisms between right and left .
Thomas Sowell distinguished between what he called ‘ constrained ’ and ‘ unconstrained ’ visions of human well-being , the former emphasising the optimisation of trade-offs within relatively immobile constraints , the latter emphasising perfectibility through the overcoming of constraints .
The former is usually associated , like Sowell himself , with conservative thought .
It encompasses a popular notion of capitalism as market exchange , the sum of innumerable transactions with no higher purpose or guiding hand emerging from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own immediate here and now .
The unconstrained vision has usually been associated with the political left and its ideas of remoulding people to work collectively , achieving new goals and great things .
But these certainties are now dissolving .
The neoliberal turn in global capitalism invests the hive mind of ‘ the market ’ itself with a kind of limit-busting , self-perfecting intelligence that brooks no opposition to any constraints human reason tries to put around it .
And various strands of unconstrained leftism sign themselves up to this programme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they supposedly reject .
Witness books with titles like Fully Automated Luxury Communism or The People ’ s Republic of Walmart : How the World ’ s Biggest Corporations Are Laying the Foundation for Socialism .
In this emerging political landscape , conservatives inclined towards the constrained vision are discovering that there ’ s nothing especially constrained or conservative about corporate capitalism , while those on the left like me , unpersuaded by either corporate capitalism or attempts to tame it with glib left-wing versions of global industrialised plenty , are discovering a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and aspects of conservative politics informed by it .
If we ’ re to bequeath a habitable and abundant planet to our descendants , a key part of that reappraisal involves rethinking the relevance of small farm or ‘ peasant ’ societies that are often dismissed for their ‘ backwardness ’ or buried under an unusable legacy of romanticism and nostalgia .
For these reasons , we need to consider some questions that modern political traditions have scarcely equipped us to answer with subtlety , or even to ask .
What if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosperity that today ’ s rich countries followed is no longer feasible for millions of poor people in ‘ developing ’ countries ?
What if that urban-industrial life in fact becomes increasingly unfeasible even in the rich countries in the face of various political , economic and ecological crises ?
How might the future of humanity then unfold ?
The above is excerpted from Chris Smaje ’ s book A Small Farm Future : Making the Case for a Society Built Around Local Economies , Self-Provisioning , Agricultural Diversity , and a Shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ) and is reprinted with permission from the publisher .
About the author Chris Smaje has coworked a small farm in Somerset , southwest England , for the last fifteen years .
Previously , he was a university-based social scientist , working in the Department of Sociology at the University of Surrey and the Department of Anthropology at Goldsmiths College on aspects of social policy , social identities and the environment .
Since switching focus to the practice and politics of agroecology , he ’ s written for various publications such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Magazine and Statistics Views , as well as academic journals such as Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems and the Journal of Consumer Culture .
Smaje writes the blog Small Farm Future and is a featured author at resilience.org .
Footnotes : 1 .
My thanks to Paul Hillman for drawing this example to my attention .
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks .

By Chris Smaje
The palm civet is a small omnivorous mammal of Indonesia and other parts of tropical Asia. Emerging from its forest home onto coffee plantations, it’s able to sense the finest coffee fruits of perfect ripeness. Eating them, it digests the pulp and excretes the beans, adding a musky scent to them from its anal glands.
In the 1990s, Indonesian kopi luwak – civet coffee, made from coffee beans that had passed through a civet’s digestive tract – became a new luxury commodity among wealthy coffee-lovers. Market dynamics being what they are, local producers cashed in on the demand by capturing and caging wild civets, force-feeding them coffee beans and selling the produce as cut-price kopi luwak. Though cheaper, the resulting coffee lacked the quality of the original conferred by the civet’s discerning nose, and came at the expense of ecological and animal welfare (1).
We live in a world of trade-offs. If you want genuine kopi luwak of good quality and low environmental impact you have to pay someone to comb through the forests looking for wild civet scat on your behalf. Humans can simulate the process and produce a similar product at lower cost, but it’s not the same.
It may sometimes be possible to find genuine trade-off free, win-win improvements. But with most things, including kopi luwak, and with agriculture in general, there are trade-offs. Improve on price and you lower animal welfare. Increase the yield and you also increase human labour, fossil fuels, or downstream pollution. And so on. Whether the cost of an improvement is worth its price is a value judgement that different people will weigh differently. But not everyone’s voice is heard, especially when the costs are offloaded onto the future.
In our bid to provide cheap food to our human multitudes, the trade-off is that a lot of people end up eating shit – figuratively and, as we’ve just seen, sometimes literally. But our culture is drawn to a narrative of constant progress – a narrative that compels us to avert our attention from this possibility raised by the economist Thomas Sowell: there are no ‘solutions,’ only trade-offs.
There are different ways of dealing with troublesome trade-offs or, in the words of futurologist Peter Frase, of ‘loving our monsters’. If human actions are driving pollinators to extinction, Frase suggests we ‘deepen our engagement with nature’ by developing robotic pseudo-bees to do the job instead. I won’t dwell here on how fanciful that is, but I will suggest a wholly different ‘monster’ we could choose to love if we so wished: an agriculture that doesn’t use poisons that kill bees, and instead favours more complex biological interventions, including more human labour. We could learn to love the immediate work in acting on the natural world as much as the mediated work of developing machines to do it. And we could also love the limits to action imposed by nature as much as we love to transcend them.
An obstacle to that kind of love is the narrative of progress I mentioned. Adopting low-tech, labour-intensive approaches to solving a problem or meeting a need, rather than high-tech, labour-substituting approaches is considered regressive, a nostalgic turning back of the clock, as if a historical ratchet prevents us from doing anything in the future that looks like things we did in the past. Actually, there is a ratchet that works like this – the capitalist political economy. The mistake we often make is to suppose that this ratchet is some implacable force of nature rather than just a particular way of organising society, itself with a history that may someday end.
These two monsters of overcoming versus restraint are becoming as significant a divide in contemporary politics as old schisms between right and left. Thomas Sowell distinguished between what he called ‘constrained’ and ‘unconstrained’ visions of human well-being, the former emphasising the optimisation of trade-offs within relatively immobile constraints, the latter emphasising perfectibility through the overcoming of constraints. The former is usually associated, like Sowell himself, with conservative thought. It encompasses a popular notion of capitalism as market exchange, the sum of innumerable transactions with no higher purpose or guiding hand emerging from the bounded rationality of people acting in their own immediate here and now. The unconstrained vision has usually been associated with the political left and its ideas of remoulding people to work collectively, achieving new goals and great things.
But these certainties are now dissolving. The neoliberal turn in global capitalism invests the hive mind of ‘the market’ itself with a kind of limit-busting, self-perfecting intelligence that brooks no opposition to any constraints human reason tries to put around it. And various strands of unconstrained leftism sign themselves up to this programme, becoming almost indistinguishable from the capitalism they supposedly reject. Witness books with titles like Fully Automated Luxury Communism or The People’s Republic of Walmart: How the World’s Biggest Corporations Are Laying the Foundation for Socialism.
In this emerging political landscape, conservatives inclined towards the constrained vision are discovering that there’s nothing especially constrained or conservative about corporate capitalism, while those on the left like me, unpersuaded by either corporate capitalism or attempts to tame it with glib left-wing versions of global industrialised plenty, are discovering a need to reappraise the idea of constraint and aspects of conservative politics informed by it. If we’re to bequeath a habitable and abundant planet to our descendants, a key part of that reappraisal involves rethinking the relevance of small farm or ‘peasant’ societies that are often dismissed for their ‘backwardness’ or buried under an unusable legacy of romanticism and nostalgia.
For these reasons, we need to consider some questions that modern political traditions have scarcely equipped us to answer with subtlety, or even to ask. What if the route out of widespread farming towards urban-industrial prosperity that today’s rich countries followed is no longer feasible for millions of poor people in ‘developing’ countries? What if that urban-industrial life in fact becomes increasingly unfeasible even in the rich countries in the face of various political, economic and ecological crises? How might the future of humanity then unfold?
The above is excerpted from Chris Smaje’s book A Small Farm Future: Making the Case for a Society Built Around Local Economies, Self-Provisioning, Agricultural Diversity, and a Shared Earth (Chelsea Green Publishing, October 2020) and is reprinted with permission from the publisher.
About the author
Chris Smaje has coworked a small farm in Somerset, southwest England, for the last fifteen years. Previously, he was a university-based social scientist, working in the Department of Sociology at the University of Surrey and the Department of Anthropology at Goldsmiths College on aspects of social policy, social identities and the environment. Since switching focus to the practice and politics of agroecology, he’s written for various publications such as The Land, Dark Mountain, Permaculture Magazine and Statistics Views, as well as academic journals such as Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems and the Journal of Consumer Culture. Smaje writes the blog Small Farm Future and is a featured author at resilience.org.
Footnotes:
1. My thanks to Paul Hillman for drawing this example to my attention.
Editor’s note. We welcome comments and information about the subject of this article. However, please note that the “reply” function in the comments section is not working for people without high level access to the website. There are two possible solutions for readers wanting to reply to specific comments:
1) Enter your comment but name the commenter you are responding to (if necessary with the date of their comment). Or,
2) Mail your comment to the editor: [email protected] and they will post it as a reply. Please be sure to say who/what you are replying to.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.


independentsciencenews--2020-11-10--The Biosecurity Myth That Is Destroying Small Farming

Chen Yun ’ s pigs stopped eating , then developed a fever .
Within a week , all 10,000 on his farm in Jiangxi , in southeast China , had died of African swine fever ( ASF ) .
In 2018-19 the virus affected every province and led to the slaughter of half the country ’ s pigs .
The outbreak spread from China to Southeast Asia ; the virus , already present in central Europe , reached Belgium in 2018 .
France and other European nations remain braced for its possible arrival .
ASF , which was identified over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans but mortality can be up to 100 % among pigs .
To tackle the epidemic , China is favouring farms with at least 500 pigs , following the biosecurity precept that bigger is better .
‘ Family farms will tend to disappear in favour of industrial production , ’ said Jian Huang , an expert at China ’ s national pig institute .
China is following health advice from international bodies for epizootic diseases ( epidemics that affect animals ) , said Wantanee Kalpravidh , an animal health expert at the UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; farms are classified according to their presumed risk of infection , from sector 1 , deemed to have the highest level of biosecurity , to sector 4 , with the lowest .
The underlying idea is that the spread of viruses is limited when animals are reared in closed buildings or behind fences that prevent contact with wild species that could transmit pathogens , and livestock eat commercially produced feed with sanitary certification rather than feed grown on the farm .
Biosecurity regulations govern not only the farm ’ s hygiene regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings , disinfection of vehicles ) but the technical and business orientation of the operation .
And that raises questions .
The biosecurity approach , which standardises and compartmentalises production methods , fails to take account of the risk created by industrial-scale livestock rearing in confined spaces .
Large-scale units are presented as the solution to a problem they helped create .
While the destruction of nature and wild habitats , often for industrial purposes , has led to the transmission of new viruses , many studies have shown the acceleration of epizootic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of livestock farming .
In Thailand , data collected in 2004 indicated that ‘ the odds of H5N1 [ bird flu ] outbreaks and infections were significantly higher in large-scale commercial poultry operations as compared with backyard flocks ’ .
In industrial farming , poor genetic diversity and widespread use of preventative treatments depress immunity to disease , while the geographic concentration of livestock , dense stocking of animals and increased distances they are transported encourage the spread of pathogens .
The recent ASF outbreak is not unique .
In the past 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crises in pig breeding : diarrhoea epidemics ( scours ) , dysgenesis ( organ malformations ) and respiratory syndrome , and H1N1 flu .
Bovine TB has reappeared on cattle farms ; poultry breeders have encountered new , highly infectious strains of H5N1 flu ; and sheep farms have faced a resurgence of the bluetongue virus .
According to the Paris-based World Organisation for Animal Health ( established in 1924 as the Office International des Épizooties and still referred to as the OIE ) , the number of livestock epidemics has almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a danger not only to animals , but also to humans , as some diseases can cross species , notably H5N1 flu , though instances are rarer than once feared .
The FAO ’ s Kalpravidh said , ‘ Producers have to ask themselves , “ How many kilos of chicken can I produce ?
How many eggs ?
” They have to up production to make more profit and use the surplus revenue to invest in biosecurity.
’ This presumption in favour of intensive agriculture worldwide is a form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more palatable term for it , making it the unchallengeable frame of reference for a particular social and economic model .
And no farm on the planet is exempt .
The bulletin of the French Veterinary Academy , acknowledging the decree from the ministry of agriculture of 8 February 2016 , noted , ‘ Biosecurity measures became obligatory for poultry farmers with the avian flu of 2015-16 .
In future , all sectors , whether extensive or intensive , will have to incorporate biosecurity measures.
’ It conceded that ways of integrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement of livestock ) ‘ are yet to be devised ’ .
Farmers raising animals free-range or for local markets are struggling to survive .
Their livestock are subject to the same biosecurity regulations , though they are less exposed to contamination because of less dense stocking and less contact with the outside world .
Since 2020 , rules in the pork sector have required a 1.3m fence around fields and a visit every two months from an outside contractor to control insects and rats .
Anne-Marie Leborgne , a pig breeder in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a profit after meeting the biosecurity rules , I ’ d have to raise my prices.
’ Just one pig in 20 in France is outdoor-reared .
Leborgne , 39 , was selling 2,000kg of organic pork a year and working part-time at the school in her village south of Toulouse .
Two months after biosecurity training from the local chamber of agriculture , she decided to get out of pig-rearing : ‘ I can ’ t see myself selling many pork chops at €18 a kilo.
’ To support biosecurity measures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU offer grants that cover 30 % of the cost of materials .
But that ’ s not enough , according to Benoît and Isabelle Dubois , mountain farmers in their 60s rearing pigs on 90 hectares near Brie in the Ariège department .
They estimate that , excluding their time and upkeep costs , they would have to spend €400,000 to meet biosecurity standards , more than they have made in 30 years of farming .
‘ After we ’ ve paid our bills , we ’ re left with €500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
Putting up fences in such steep , rocky terrain would be tough.
’ They continue to farm on this arid land , but suspect they will be the last to raise pigs here .
They don ’ t offer student work placements as they think it would be unfair to encourage young people to go into a business that ’ s ‘ impossible to make work ’ .
While free-range operations struggle to comply with biosecurity measures , the economy still works for big producers .
During health crises , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Only sector 1 operations that comply with security measures and checks can obtain a permit that grants them ‘ compartment ’ status , defined by the OIE as ‘ one or more establishments under a common biosecurity management system containing an animal sub-population with a distinct health status with respect to a specific disease for which required surveillance , control and biosecurity measures have been applied for the purpose of international trade ’ .
All 182 OIE members approved the compartmentalisation principle in 2004 , and it later became law in Chile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australia and elsewhere .
In February 2006 France issued a decree that favoured big producers .
One such company is France Poultry , a Brittany-based producer formerly known as Doux , which gained compartment status for its 120 affiliated farms in 2017 .
It slaughters 340,000 birds daily and ships 70-80 containers a week from the port of Brest , 93 % for export .
The poultry is reared in 35,000-bird units , each bird allotted less space than a sheet of A4 paper .
The units belong to subcontractors who work exclusively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biosecurity specifications , which , according to CEO François Le Fort , makes them ‘ sanitary bubbles ’ .
But a 2018 study shows that frequent contact between farms in the same compartment creates significant opportunity for virus transmission in a bird flu outbreak .
Even if compartmentalisation prevents contamination from wild animals , there are other vectors of disease , such as the staff , air , water and feed .
Although all these transmission routes are covered by strict regulations , daily working practices often fall short .
Manon Racicot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of epidemiology selected eight producers in consultation with Quebec ’ s poultry-breeding associations , and studied how they applied biosecurity protocols .
She found 44 repeated mistakes that invalidated claims of biosecurity , including stocking density , confusion between clean and contaminated areas , failure to observe hygiene standards , and employees ’ poor understanding of sanitary principles .
Sanitary bubbles are a myth .
A biosecurity regime , and the ‘ islands ’ outside the common law that it creates , threatens the health of animals and humans by setting no upper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also represents a democratic deficit , with case-by-case reasoning trumping the common good .
The process of recognising a compartment for export involves two stages that transform the authorities into a service provider for industry .
A farm must first be approved by its own country ’ s veterinary authorities .
Then , all exporting countries negotiate bilateral agreements with importing countries to have their applicant companies approved .
Diplomacy now flies the flag for private enterprise .
The state is no longer supporting its agricultural community , a sector or a regional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambassador for brands and their products .
When France speaks up for France Poultry ’ s activities , is it championing public or private interests ?
The OIE and the ministry of agriculture declined to comment .
( 1 ) He Huifeng , ‘ China ’ s “ heartbroken ” pig farmers torn apart by pork price spike and African swine fever ’ , South China Morning Post , Hong Kong , 12 September 2019 .
( 3 ) According to Kalpravidh , ‘ sector 1 is high-density , closed operations with intensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; sector 2 , large-scale intensive units that are closed but not integrated with the industry ; sector 3 , medium-scale intensive units not integrated with the industry and sector 4 , extensive units with fewer , free-range animals , often living with other species.
’ ( 4 ) See Sonia Shah , ‘ The microbes , the animals and us ’ , Le Monde diplomatique , English edition , March 2020 .
( 5 ) Jessica H Leibler , Marco Carone and Ellen K Silbergeld , ‘ Contribution of company affiliation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission of avian influenza ’ , PLOS One , 25 March 2010 , journals.plos.org/ .
( 6 ) Jay P Graham et al , ‘ The animal-human interface and infectious disease in industrial food animal production : Rethinking biosecurity and biocontainment ’ , Public Health Reports , vol 123 , no 2 ( supplement ) , May-June 2008 .
( 7 ) Didier Guériaux , Alexandre Fediaevsky and Bruno Ferreira , ‘ La biosécurité : investissement d ’ avenir pour les élevages français ’ ( Biosecurity : investment in the future for French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Académie vétérinaire française , vol 170 , no 2 , Paris , 2017 .
( 8 ) TJ Hagenaars et al , ‘ Risk of poultry compartments for transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza ’ , PLOS One , 28 November 2018 .
The study ’ s simulation modelled a region with a high density of farms , such as Brittany .
( 9 ) Manon Racicot et al , ‘ Description of 44 biosecurity errors while entering and exiting poultry barns based on video surveillance in Quebec , Canada ’ , Preventive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3-4 , July 2011 .
Lucile Leclair is the author of Pandémies : une production industrielle ( Pandemics : An industrial product ) , Seuil , 2020 .
Translated by George Miller .
This article is reprinted from LeMonde diplomatique .
Copyright ©2020 Le Monde diplomatique — distributed by Agence Global If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks .

by Lucile Leclair
Chen Yun’s pigs stopped eating, then developed a fever. Within a week, all 10,000 on his farm in Jiangxi, in southeast China, had died of African swine fever (ASF). In 2018-19 the virus affected every province and led to the slaughter of half the country’s pigs. The outbreak spread from China to Southeast Asia; the virus, already present in central Europe, reached Belgium in 2018. France and other European nations remain braced for its possible arrival. ASF, which was identified over a century ago, does not infect humans but mortality can be up to 100% among pigs.
To tackle the epidemic, China is favouring farms with at least 500 pigs, following the biosecurity precept that bigger is better. ‘Family farms will tend to disappear in favour of industrial production,’ said Jian Huang, an expert at China’s national pig institute. China is following health advice from international bodies for epizootic diseases (epidemics that affect animals), said Wantanee Kalpravidh, an animal health expert at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO); farms are classified according to their presumed risk of infection, from sector 1, deemed to have the highest level of biosecurity, to sector 4, with the lowest.
The underlying idea is that the spread of viruses is limited when animals are reared in closed buildings or behind fences that prevent contact with wild species that could transmit pathogens, and livestock eat commercially produced feed with sanitary certification rather than feed grown on the farm. Biosecurity regulations govern not only the farm’s hygiene regime (hand-washing, clothing changes before entering buildings, disinfection of vehicles) but the technical and business orientation of the operation. And that raises questions.
The biosecurity approach, which standardises and compartmentalises production methods, fails to take account of the risk created by industrial-scale livestock rearing in confined spaces. Large-scale units are presented as the solution to a problem they helped create. While the destruction of nature and wild habitats, often for industrial purposes, has led to the transmission of new viruses, many studies have shown the acceleration of epizootic diseases also owes much to the industrialisation of livestock farming.
In Thailand, data collected in 2004 indicated that ‘the odds of H5N1 [bird flu] outbreaks and infections were significantly higher in large-scale commercial poultry operations as compared with backyard flocks’. In industrial farming, poor genetic diversity and widespread use of preventative treatments depress immunity to disease, while the geographic concentration of livestock, dense stocking of animals and increased distances they are transported encourage the spread of pathogens.
The recent ASF outbreak is not unique. In the past 30 years, there has been a series of crises in pig breeding: diarrhoea epidemics (scours), dysgenesis (organ malformations) and respiratory syndrome, and H1N1 flu. Bovine TB has reappeared on cattle farms; poultry breeders have encountered new, highly infectious strains of H5N1 flu; and sheep farms have faced a resurgence of the bluetongue virus. According to the Paris-based World Organisation for Animal Health (established in 1924 as the Office International des Épizooties and still referred to as the OIE), the number of livestock epidemics has almost tripled in the past 15 years. This is a danger not only to animals, but also to humans, as some diseases can cross species, notably H5N1 flu, though instances are rarer than once feared.
The FAO’s Kalpravidh said, ‘Producers have to ask themselves, “How many kilos of chicken can I produce? How many eggs?” They have to up production to make more profit and use the surplus revenue to invest in biosecurity.’ This presumption in favour of intensive agriculture worldwide is a form of industrialisation; ‘biosecurity’ is simply a more palatable term for it, making it the unchallengeable frame of reference for a particular social and economic model. And no farm on the planet is exempt.
The bulletin of the French Veterinary Academy, acknowledging the decree from the ministry of agriculture of 8 February 2016, noted, ‘Biosecurity measures became obligatory for poultry farmers with the avian flu of 2015-16. In future, all sectors, whether extensive or intensive, will have to incorporate biosecurity measures.’ It conceded that ways of integrating such measures with transhumance (the seasonal movement of livestock) ‘are yet to be devised’.
Farmers raising animals free-range or for local markets are struggling to survive. Their livestock are subject to the same biosecurity regulations, though they are less exposed to contamination because of less dense stocking and less contact with the outside world. Since 2020, rules in the pork sector have required a 1.3m fence around fields and a visit every two months from an outside contractor to control insects and rats. Anne-Marie Leborgne, a pig breeder in Haute-Garonne, realised that ‘to make a profit after meeting the biosecurity rules, I’d have to raise my prices.’ Just one pig in 20 in France is outdoor-reared. Leborgne, 39, was selling 2,000kg of organic pork a year and working part-time at the school in her village south of Toulouse. Two months after biosecurity training from the local chamber of agriculture, she decided to get out of pig-rearing: ‘I can’t see myself selling many pork chops at €18 a kilo.’
To support biosecurity measures, the regional council in southwest France and the EU offer grants that cover 30% of the cost of materials. But that’s not enough, according to Benoît and Isabelle Dubois, mountain farmers in their 60s rearing pigs on 90 hectares near Brie in the Ariège department. They estimate that, excluding their time and upkeep costs, they would have to spend €400,000 to meet biosecurity standards, more than they have made in 30 years of farming. ‘After we’ve paid our bills, we’re left with €500 each month for us both to live on. Putting up fences in such steep, rocky terrain would be tough.’ They continue to farm on this arid land, but suspect they will be the last to raise pigs here. They don’t offer student work placements as they think it would be unfair to encourage young people to go into a business that’s ‘impossible to make work’.
While free-range operations struggle to comply with biosecurity measures, the economy still works for big producers. During health crises, some producers are exempt from movement restrictions. Only sector 1 operations that comply with security measures and checks can obtain a permit that grants them ‘compartment’ status, defined by the OIE as ‘one or more establishments under a common biosecurity management system containing an animal sub-population with a distinct health status with respect to a specific disease for which required surveillance, control and biosecurity measures have been applied for the purpose of international trade’. All 182 OIE members approved the compartmentalisation principle in 2004, and it later became law in Chile, the US, UK, China, Australia and elsewhere. In February 2006 France issued a decree that favoured big producers.
One such company is France Poultry, a Brittany-based producer formerly known as Doux, which gained compartment status for its 120 affiliated farms in 2017. It slaughters 340,000 birds daily and ships 70-80 containers a week from the port of Brest, 93% for export. The poultry is reared in 35,000-bird units, each bird allotted less space than a sheet of A4 paper. The units belong to subcontractors who work exclusively for France Poultry, complying with strict biosecurity specifications, which, according to CEO François Le Fort, makes them ‘sanitary bubbles’.
But a 2018 study shows that frequent contact between farms in the same compartment creates significant opportunity for virus transmission in a bird flu outbreak. Even if compartmentalisation prevents contamination from wild animals, there are other vectors of disease, such as the staff, air, water and feed. Although all these transmission routes are covered by strict regulations, daily working practices often fall short. Manon Racicot of the University of Montreal’s department of epidemiology selected eight producers in consultation with Quebec’s poultry-breeding associations, and studied how they applied biosecurity protocols. She found 44 repeated mistakes that invalidated claims of biosecurity, including stocking density, confusion between clean and contaminated areas, failure to observe hygiene standards, and employees’ poor understanding of sanitary principles. Sanitary bubbles are a myth.
A biosecurity regime, and the ‘islands’ outside the common law that it creates, threatens the health of animals and humans by setting no upper size limits on big producers. It also represents a democratic deficit, with case-by-case reasoning trumping the common good. The process of recognising a compartment for export involves two stages that transform the authorities into a service provider for industry. A farm must first be approved by its own country’s veterinary authorities. Then, all exporting countries negotiate bilateral agreements with importing countries to have their applicant companies approved.
Diplomacy now flies the flag for private enterprise. The state is no longer supporting its agricultural community, a sector or a regional specialism: it’s becoming an ambassador for brands and their products. When France speaks up for France Poultry’s activities, is it championing public or private interests? The OIE and the ministry of agriculture declined to comment.
(1) He Huifeng, ‘China’s “heartbroken” pig farmers torn apart by pork price spike and African swine fever’, South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 12 September 2019.
(2) ‘Des experts dressent un sombre tableau de l’élevage porcin chinois’ (Experts paint a dark picture of Chinese pork rearing), AFP, 11 September 2019.
(3) According to Kalpravidh, ‘sector 1 is high-density, closed operations with intensive production that are integrated into the industry; sector 2, large-scale intensive units that are closed but not integrated with the industry; sector 3, medium-scale intensive units not integrated with the industry and sector 4, extensive units with fewer, free-range animals, often living with other species.’
(4) See Sonia Shah, ‘The microbes, the animals and us’, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, March 2020.
(5) Jessica H Leibler , Marco Carone and Ellen K Silbergeld, ‘Contribution of company affiliation and social contacts to risk estimates of between-farm transmission of avian influenza’, PLOS One, 25 March 2010, journals.plos.org/.
(6) Jay P Graham et al, ‘The animal-human interface and infectious disease in industrial food animal production: Rethinking biosecurity and biocontainment’, Public Health Reports, vol 123, no 2 (supplement), May-June 2008.
(7) Didier Guériaux, Alexandre Fediaevsky and Bruno Ferreira, ‘La biosécurité: investissement d’avenir pour les élevages français’ (Biosecurity: investment in the future for French farms), Bulletin de l’Académie vétérinaire française, vol 170, no 2, Paris, 2017.
(8) TJ Hagenaars et al, ‘Risk of poultry compartments for transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza’, PLOS One, 28 November 2018. The study’s simulation modelled a region with a high density of farms, such as Brittany.
(9) Manon Racicot et al, ‘Description of 44 biosecurity errors while entering and exiting poultry barns based on video surveillance in Quebec, Canada’, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol 100, no 3-4, July 2011.
Lucile Leclair is the author of Pandémies: une production industrielle (Pandemics: An industrial product), Seuil, 2020. Translated by George Miller.
This article is reprinted from LeMonde diplomatique. Copyright ©2020 Le Monde diplomatique — distributed by Agence Global
Editor’s note. We welcome comments and information about the subject of this article. However, please note that the “reply” function in the comments section is not working for people without high level access to the website. There are two possible solutions for readers wanting to reply to specific comments:
1) Enter your comment but name the commenter you are responding to (if necessary with the date of their comment). Or,
2) Mail your comment to the editor: [email protected] and they will post it as a reply. Please be sure to say who/what you are replying to.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.