I am transitioning my blog posts to a new site: https://vincelliblog.wordpress.com/
The theme will remain the same: out-of-the-box posts on food-system sustainability.
Out-of-the-Box: Science-Based Insights into Food System Sustainability
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Friday, January 8, 2016
(Nearly) Sustainable Food Systems, Part I
My vote for
the most sustainable food system humans have ever experienced is for the hunter-gatherer
existence. Before the advent of
agriculture roughly 10-11,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans lived only
as hunter-gatherers for well over 100,000 years while causing limited ecological
disruption. Some hunter-gatherer
cultures continue to exist today, but worldwide, most of us live by the blessings
of agriculture.
A
hunter-gatherer’s life is a subsistence one, with little beyond life’s
fundamental material necessities. Hunter-gatherers
have limited capacity to carry and store goods and possessions (Diamond, 1997;
Finkel, 2009). It is only through the
advent of agriculture that societies can develop highly specialized roles (political
leaders, merchants, artists, teachers, soldiers, priests, scribes, and
technology specialists).
Life as a
hunter-gatherer may offer a sense of deep freedom (Finkel, 2009), and compared
to early farming communities, the hunter-gather life apparently offered a
superior existence (Diamond, 1987).
However, it is a life very, very distant from our present world of material
comforts, cherished electronic devices, and relative security. Visual snapshots of traditional lives can
make this point much more powerfully than I.
Click here and here.
In my professional
travels in four continents, I have never gotten the sense that there is a
groundswell of people poised ready to relinquish a 21st-century material
lifestyle. Yes, some of us make some
progress in simplifying our lives. For
example, I often buy local; all year, I ride a bike or walk as much as possible;
I drive a four-cylinder; I recycle; etc.
Did you see the
wealth in that last sentence? I own a
bicycle; I own a car; I eat three square meals a day, made of delicious,
diverse foods of my choosing, in a kitchen with running water, a gas range, a
refrigerator, heat and A/C. Heck, I have
shoes! Several pairs! And boots!
And running shoes! And soccer
shoes! I have lived overseas in regions of
deep poverty, and…let’s just say that living a subsistence life does not seem
to me to be a joyous, freely made choice for most people in the 21st century.
But what if
a global transformation occurred in human thinking, and we agreed the world
over to return to the simplicity of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Could we?
Hunter-gatherers
need at least 2.5 km2 (=250 hectares) of land surface per person
(Diamond, 1987; Diamond, 1997). The
United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization states that Earth has 13.4 billion
hectares of ice-free land (FAO, 1993).
Dividing 13.4 billion hectares of land by 250 hectares per person gives 54
million people as Earth’s maximum carrying capacity for hunter-gatherers. Dividing 54 million people by our present
population of 7.3 billion people gives a proportion of 0.007, which is equivalent
to 0.7%.
This
“back-of-the-envelope” calculation suggests that the most sustainable food system
humans have ever experienced cannot even accommodate one percent of our present
population. What are we to do
with the 99+%? And do we even dare to
look a mere 35 years ahead to mid-century, when the global population is
expected to be well over nine billion?
This
calculation suggests to me that addressing the challenges of food-system
sustainability will be…well…challenging.
In fact, extremely so. Probably
more challenging than most think. And it
isn’t just a challenge due to our high current population, nor to our continuing
population growth. The inexorable march
of climate change introduces “jokers” into the deck. As geophysicist Ray Pierrehumbert said at the
2012 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, “we are running an uncontrolled
experiment with the Earth, and we have to live in the beaker.”
Challenges
indeed.
Look for
more on this line of thought in Part 2 of this two-part series.
Citations
1.
Diamond, J. 1987. The Worst Mistake in the
History of the Human Race. Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.
2.
Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Norton and
Company, New York.
3.
FAO, 1993, FESLM:
An international framework for evaluating sustainable land management,
Section entitled “Issues
of Sustainable Land Management”
4.
Finkel, M. 2009. The Hazda. National Geographic, October 2009.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Why the Acronym “GMO” Can Provoke Deep-Seated Anger
Among U.S.
citizens, the acronym “GMO” usually elicits curiosity, although people sometimes
react with discomfort and even anger. The
latter is a phenomenon I am still seeking to understand. I see genetic engineering (GE) as a suite of
tools for crop improvement that can help us address some of the many challenges
to food-system sustainability. Therefore,
it is hard for me to understand the anger directed at me before they even know
me or my values. I must admit, I usually
get defensive in the face of such a person, as I have my own stories of being
personally and unfairly attacked. This
is probably true for any scientist who offers outreach on genetic engineering,
if they do so long enough. But
ultimately, I realize that, the more I understand the concerns of the public,
the more effective I’ll be as an educator.
Figure 1. Latin American friends watching a soccer match. Note what the red tee-shirt says. |
I have been
privileged to live in several Latin America countries over my lifetime, most
recently during a 6.5-month sabbatical to Nicaragua in 2014. I was surprised at the level of deep anger
and/or anxiety “GMO” provokes (Figure 1).
Again, I have been puzzled by this, but a recent media report gave me
valuable insight.
The title of
the report caught my attention: “Syngenta
convicted: Justice finds company responsible for armed attack on encamped rural
workers.” As a researcher who periodically
interacts with scientists from Syngenta as a normal part of my job, I immediately
stopped what I was doing and read the article.
It reports on a court case related to the murder of an activist apparently
encamped on the property of a Syngenta research station in the state of Paraná,
Brazil.
The story is
sad. I don’t know of any excuse for the
violence described.
The
scientists I know at Syngenta are honorable, decent people, and they live a
hemisphere away from the reported events.
I just thought that that needed saying, out of respect for the honorable
scientists who work for industry.
With respect
to the attack, Syngenta is reported to have said that “the attack was not made
by the company it hired, but rather by militia acting on the orders of
landowners.” This sounds credible, as I
can’t imagine a multinational corporation ordering the assassination of local
activists. However, I realize don’t have
all the facts of the case. Nevertheless,
defending Syngenta is not the reason I wrote this post. What was important about this report was the
insight it gave me into the personal stories behind the emotionally powerful acronym,
“GMO.”
As reported
by Terra de Direitos, members of the
organization Via Campesina associate the
term genetic engineering with “a
farming model based on monoculture, gross exploitation of farm workers,
environmental degradation, use of pesticides and private appropriate [sic] of natural and genetic resources.” Let’s call this Perspective #1.
I understand
where each of those points is coming from:
1.
Large-scale monoculture does have risks:
biological risks, economic risks, and social risks. The local population in this report perceives
its food security to be greater with highly diversified small farms (Figure 2) than
with large-scale farming (Figure 3). And
in their case, they may be right, though that is too complex a subject to
discuss in this post.
2.
Farm workers can certainly be exploited in
large-scale farming systems, in the USA as well as in Brazil.
3.
Large-scale farms can cause environmental
degradation.
4.
Farms of all sizes use pesticides, but many large-scale
farms depend on certain uses of pesticide.
5.
It seems valid to wonder why patent laws in
developed nations might be used to protect the intellectual property of genetic
material whose past origin may be a developing country.
Figure 2. Highly diversified, small-scale demonstration farm in Nicaragua. |
All of these
points have validity. But what is
important from my standpoint as an educator is that the local population
perceives GE crops to be linked to all of these problems. And now, given this story, the acronym “GMO” it
is linked to assassination of local leaders. How awful!
Scientific data are meaningless in the face of that level of pain and
mistrust.
In the minds
of many goodhearted scientists all over the world, that acronym does not evoke
Perspective #1. While not negating the
perspective of the local population, there is at least one other perspective.
Perspective #2:
1.
GE technology is not linked to monoculture, just
like plant breeding isn’t linked to monoculture. There is no reason that a public-domain GE
variety couldn’t be used in polyculture on a smallholder’s diversified farm. A GE variety is simply a crop variety. Many serious insects and diseases are highly
damaging in smallholder plots just as they are in large monocultures; in other
words, they are scale-neutral. Examples
include begomoviruses attacking cassava in Eastern Africa, bacterial wilt of
banana in Africa, as well as cassava witches broom and the cassava mealybug in
Southeast Asia. These are problems that
are screaming for genetic solutions, in
part because so many smallholders need them.
2.
Would eliminating GE crops eliminate
exploitation of farm workers? Unjust as
it is, exploitation existed before GE crops were commercialized, and it exists
today even in non-GE farming systems.
3.
GE crops can help us address some of the
environmental degradation associated with farming. For example, GE can help improve fertilizer
use efficiency, increase the use of conservation tillage, and maybe even lead
to nitrogen-fixing cereals. Most
scientists are enthusiastic about technologies that can help address real-world
problems.
4.
I have no doubt that GE will help lead to
progressively greater reductions in pesticide use, particularly against
diseases and insects. This isn’t speculation. The scientific literature is full of papers reporting
on GE traits or techniques that bear directly on pesticide-free pest control.
5.
I do share this concern, at least on a
fundamental level, about the appropriation of genetic resources from developing
countries. I personally prefer GE traits
in the public domain, and some already are in the public domain, like the
Rainbow papaya. Readers may also be interested
to know that all U.S.-patented GE traits revert to the public domain after 20
years.
So when we
talk about GMOS, it is almost like we could be speaking different
languages. When a smallholder in a
developing country says “GMO,” s/he is often speaking from Perspective #1. This has been my experience in Latin America,
though I didn’t fully understand it at the time. Conversely, when I say “GMO,” I am speaking
from Perspective #2. Both perspectives
are valid, but they are clearly very, very different.
What I
didn’t understand while in Nicaragua was how much the fear of domination
underlies any public perceptions about GE.
Nicaragua has a long history of domination: domination by the USA;
domination by its home-grown dictators (whose power partially derived from the
support of the USA); and domination by multinational corporations. That was hard for me to understand, because I
don’t share their history and their culture, but this article helps me
better-understand such a perspective.
I have no
grand insights here. I simply comprehend
better that, in order to communicate about the role, if any, of GE crops in
sustainability, I will do well to try to understand the varied perspectives of those
willing to engage in dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)