We Eat by the Grace of
Nature, Not by the Grace of Monsanto
เรากินด้วยพรของธรรมชาติ,
ไม่ใช่ด้วยพรของมอนซานโต
by Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez
โดย เจนนิเฟอร์ บราวดีย์ เดอ เฮอร์นานเดซ
(ดรุณี ตันติวิรมานนท์ แปล)
“Organic, schmorganic,” fumes New York Times columnist Roger
Cohen sarcastically in an article entitled “The Organic Fable.”
“ออร์แกนิก, ชมอร์แกนิก”,
คอลัมนิสต์นิวยอร์กไทมส์ รอเจอร์ โคเฮน
พลุ่นพล่านเสียดสีในบทความ “นิทานออร์แกนิก”.
He bases his sweeping dismissal of the organic foods
movement on a new Stanford University study claiming that “fruits and
vegetables labeled organic are, on average, no more nutritious than their
cheaper conventional counterparts.”
เขาปาดกวาดทิ้งขบวนการอาหารออร์แกนิก/อินทรีย์ โดยอ้างรายงสานการศึกษาใหม่ของมหาวิทยาลัยสแตนฟอร์ด
ที่อ้างว่า “ผลไม้และผักติดป้ายอินทรีย์, โดยเฉลี่ย,
ไม่ได้มีคุณค่าอาหารมากกว่าอาหารธรรมดาๆ ชนิดเดียวกันที่ถูกกว่า”.
Cohen does grant that “organic farming is probably better
for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna are contaminated by
chemicals…. So this is food that is better ecologically even if it is not
better nutritionally.”
โคเฮนได้ยอมรับว่า “เกษตรอินทรีย์ คงจะดีกว่าสำหรับสิ่งแวดล้อม
เพราะทำให้ดิน, พืชและสัตว์ ต้องปนเปื้อนสารเคมีน้อยกว่า...ดังนั้น
นี่เป็นอาหารที่ดีกว่าเชิงนิเวศ แม้ว่ามันจะไม่ได้ดีกว่าเชิงโภชนาการ”.
But he goes on to smear the organic movement as an elitist,
pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.
แต่เขาเดินหน้าใส่ร้ายป้ายสีขบวนการอินทรีย์ว่าเป็น พวกอภิสิทธิ์, การหมกมุ่นของวิทยาศาสตร์จอมปลอม
ที่เต็มไปด้วยโฆษณาชวนเชื่อ.
“To feed a planet of 9 billion people,” he says, “we are
going to need high yields not low yields; we are going to need genetically
modified crops; we are going to need pesticides and fertilizers and other
elements of the industrialized food processes that have led mankind to be
better fed and live longer than at any time in history.
“เพื่อเลี้ยงประชากรโลก 9 พันล้านคน”, เขากล่าว,
“เราจำเป็นต้องมีผลผลิตสูง ไม่ใช่ผลผลิตต่ำ; เราจำเป็นต้องมีพืชที่ตัดแต่งทางพันธุกรรม; เราจำเป็นต้องใช้ยาฆ่าแมลงและปุ๋ยและผลิตภัณฑ์อื่นๆ
ของกระบวนการผลิตอาหารทางอุตสาหกรรม
ที่ได้ทำให้มนุษยชาติกินดีและอายุยืนกว่าเวลาไหนๆ ในประวัติศาสตร์”.
“I’d rather be against nature and have more people better
fed. I’d rather be serious about the world’s needs. And I trust the monitoring
agencies that ensure pesticides are used at safe levels — a trust the Stanford
study found to be justified.”
“ผมต้องการจะต่อต้านธรรมชาติและให้ประชากรมากขึ้นได้กินดีขึ้น. ผมต้องการจะเอาจริงเอาจังกับความต้องการของโลก.
และผมเชื่อหน่วยงานติดตามตรวจสอบที่เป็นผู้ดูแลให้ใช้ยาฆ่าแมลงในระดับที่ปลอดภัย—ความเชื่อถือที่รายงานการศึกษาสแตนฟอร์ดได้พิสูจน์ให้เห็น”.
Cohen ends by calling the organic movement “a fable of the
pampered parts of the planet — romantic and comforting.”
โคเฮนจบด้วยการเรียก การขับเคลื่อนอินทรีย์
“นิทานของพวกที่ถูกประคบประหงม—โรแมนติกและสบายใจ”.
But the truth is that his own, science-driven Industrial
Agriculture mythology is far more delusional.
แต่ความจริงคือ เทพนิยายอุตสาหกรรมเกษตรที่ขับเคลื่อนด้วยวิทยาศาสตร์ของเขาเองนั่นแหละ
ที่เป็นภาพหลอนมากกว่า.
Let me count the ways that his take on the organic foods
movement is off the mark:
ฉันขอนับวิธีการที่เขาโจมตีการเคลื่อนไหวอินทรีย์ แบบมั่วๆ :
Organic food may not be more “nutritious,” but it is
healthier because it is not saturated with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides
and preservatives, not to mention antibiotics, growth hormones and who knows
what other chemicals.
อาหารอินทรีย์อาจไม่มี “คุณค่าอาหาร” มากกว่า, แต่ดีต่อสุขภาพกว่า
เพราะไม่ได้อิ่มตัวไปด้วยยาฆ่าแมลง, ยาฆ่าวัชพืช, ยาฆ่าเชื้อรา และสารกันบูด,
ไม่ต้องพูดถึงยาปฏิชีวนะ, ฮอร์โมนกระตุ้นการเติบโต และใครจะไปรู้ว่ามีสารเคมีอื่นๆ
อะไรบ้าง.
There are obvious “health advantages” in this, since we
know—though Cohen doesn’t mention—that synthetic chemicals and poor health,
from asthma to cancer, go hand in hand.
อันนี้มี “ข้อดีต่อสุขภาพ”, เพราะเรารู้—แม้ว่าโคเฮนจะไม่ได้เอ่ยถึง—ว่า
สารเคมีสังเคราะห์ และ สุขภาพอ่อนแอ, ตั้งแต่หืดหอบจนถึงมะเร็ง, ไปด้วยกัน.
Organic food is only elitist if it comes from Whole
Foods—the one source Cohen mentions. I grow organic vegetables in my backyard,
and they save me money every summer. We don’t need the corporatization of
organic foods, we need local cooperatives (like the CSAs in my region) to
provide affordable organic produce that doesn’t require expensive and wasteful
transport thousands of miles from field to table.
อาหารอินทรีย์ จัดเป็น อภิสิทธิ์ หากมันมาจาก โฮลฟู๊ด
(อาหารองค์รวม—ชื่อเฉพาะ/ยี่ห้อ)—แหล่งหนึ่งที่โคเฮนเอ่ยถึง. ฉันปลูกผักอินทรีย์ที่ท้ายบ้าน,
และมันก็ช่วยประหยัดเงินของฉันทุกๆ ฤดูร้อน.
เราไม่จำเป็นต้องทำให้อาหารอินทรีย์กลายเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของบรรษัท,
เราจำเป็นต้องมีสหกรณ์ในท้องถิ่น (เช่น CSAs ในภูมิภาคของฉัน)
เพื่อจัดหาผลผลิตอินทรีย์ที่จ่ายไหว
ที่ไม่ต้องอาศัยการขนส่งที่แพงและสิ้นเปลืองเพื่อให้อาหารเดินทางไกลหลายพันไมล์จากท้องทุ่งสู่โต๊ะอาหาร.
About feeding 9 billion people: first of all, we should be
working hard to curb population growth, for all kinds of good reasons. We know
we’ve gone beyond the carrying capacity of our planet, and we shouldn’t be
deluding ourselves that we can techno-fix our way out of the problem.
Industrial agriculture is a big part of the problem. It will never be part of
the solution. Agriculture must be relocalized and brought back into harmony
with the natural, organic cycles of the planet. If this doesn’t happen, and
soon, all the GMO seed and fertilizers in the world won’t help us survive the
climate cataclysm that awaits.
เกี่ยวกับการเลี้ยงประชากร 9 พันล้าน: ประการแรก, เราควรทำงานหนักเพื่อลดอัตราการเกิดของประชากรโลก,
ด้วยเหตุผลที่ดีทั้งหลาย. เรารู้ว่า
เราได้ไปเกินกว่าสมรรถนะของโลกที่จะเลี้ยงดูพวกเรา, และเราไม่ควรจะหลอกตัวเองว่า
เราสามารถใช้เทคโนโลยีแก้ไขซ่อมแซมหนทางเพื่อให้เราหลุดออกจากปัญหา. เกษตรอุตสาหกรรม เป็นส่วนใหญ่ของปัญหา. มันไม่เคยเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของทางแก้ไข. เกษตรจะต้องถูกเปลี่ยนที่ใหม่ และนำให้มันกลับคืนสู่ความกลมกลืนกับธรรมชาติ,
วัฏจักรอินทรีย์ของพิภพ.
หากอันนี้ไม่เกิดขึ้น, และอีกไม่นาน, เมล็ดจีเอ็มโอ และปุ๋ยทั้งหมดในโลกนี้
จะไม่สามารถช่วยให้เรารอดพ้นจากหายนะทางภูมิอากาศที่รออยู่.
Mankind is better fed and longer lived now than any time in
history? Here Cohen reveals his own elitist, Whole-Foods myopia. Surely he must
know that some billion people go to bed hungry every night, with no relief in
sight? Mortality statistics are also skewed heavily in favor of wealthy
countries. So yes, those of us in the industrialized nations are—again,
depending on our class standing—living longer and eating better than in the
past, but only at the cost of tremendous draining of resources from other parts
of the world, and at increasing costs in terms of our own health.
มนุษยชาติทุกวันนี้ กินดี และอายุยืนกว่ายุคใดๆ
ในประวัติศาสตร์? ตรงนี้
โคเฮนได้เผยสายตาสั้น โฮลฟู๊ด อภิสิทธิ์ของตัวเอง. แน่ใจว่าเขาต้องรู้ว่า ประชากรนับพันล้าน
เข้านอนด้วยท้องร้องหิวทุกคืน, โดยไม่เห็นมีทางบรรเทาใดๆ. สถิติอัตราการตายเอียงเข้าข้างประเทศร่ำรวย. ใช่แล้ว, พวกเราที่อยู่ในประเทศอุตสาหกรรมก็—อีกนั่นแหละ,
ขึ้นอยู่ว่าเราอยู่ในชนชั้นไหน—อายุยืนกว่า และกินดีกว่าในอดีต,
แต่ด้วยต้นทุนมหาศาลของการระบายทรัพยากรจากภูมิภาคอื่นๆ ของโลก,
และจ่ายด้วยราคาสูงขึ้นในรูปของสุขภาพของเรา.
Just as HIV/AIDS is the scourge of the less developed world,
cancer, asthma, heart disease and diabetes are the bane of the developed world,
and all are related to the toxic chemicals we ingest, along with too much
highly processed, sugary, fatty foods.
ในขณะที่ HIV/AIDS เป็นหายนะของโลกด้อยพัฒนา, มะเร็ง,
หืดหอบ, โรคหัวใจ และเบาหวาน เป็นสิ่งทำให้คนในโลกพัฒนาแล้วตาย, และทั้งหมดสาวโยงไปถึงสารพิษเคมีที่เรากลืนกินเข้าไป,
พร้อมกับอาหารที่ถูกแปรรูปอย่างเข้มข้น, น้ำตาล, อาหารไขมันสูง.
For someone who is calling the organic movement “romantic,”
Cohen seems to have an almost childlike confidence in authority figures. He
says he trusts “the monitoring agencies that ensure pesticides are used at safe
levels — a trust the Stanford study found to be justified.” And I suppose he
also still believes in Santa Claus? We cannot trust that the “safe levels” established
by the EPA or FDA are in fact safe, given the fact that we in an environment
where thousands of chemicals enter the market without sufficient testing,
presumed innocent unless proven guilty—but to win the case against them, first
people must get sick and die.
สำหรับบางคนที่เรียกการเคลื่อนไหวอินทรีย์ว่า เป็นเรื่อง
“โรแมนติก”, ดูเหมือนโคเฮนจะมีความเชื่อมั่นเกือบเหมือนเด็กๆ
ต่อคนที่มีอำนาจ. เขาบอกว่า เขาเชื่อถือ
“หน่วยงานติดตามตรวจสอบ ที่ดูแลให้แน่ใจว่า ยาฆ่าแมลงถูกใช้ในระดับที่ปลอดภัย—ความเชื่อถือที่รายงานสแตนฟอร์ดได้พิสูจน์ให้เห็นแล้ว”. และฉันเข้าใจว่า
เขาก็ยังคงเชื่อในซานตาคลอส?
เราไม่สามารถเชื่อถือได้ว่า “ระดับที่ปลอดภัย” ที่ EPA (สิ่งแวดล้อม) หรือ
FDA (อย)
เป็นผู้กำหนดขึ้นนั้น ปลอดภัยจริง, ด้วยความจริงที่ว่า
เราอยู่ในสภาพแวดล้อมที่สารเคมีนับพันไหลเข้าสู่ตลาดโดยปราศจากการตรวจสอบอย่างพอเพียง,
กลายเป็นผู้บริสุทธิ์ หากไม่ถูกพิสูจน์ว่าผิดจริง—แต่การได้ชัยชนะในการสู้คดีกับมัน,
คนต้องป่วยและตายก่อน.
Cohen’s concluding zinger, “I’d rather be against nature and
have more people better fed,” displays his own breathtaking blind spot as
regards the human relation to the natural world.
สร้อยสรุปของโคเฮน, “ผมยินดีต่อต้านธรรมชาติ
เพื่อให้ประชากรมากขึ้นมีกิน”, แสดงออกถึงจุดบอดที่น่าใจหายของเขาเอง
ในเรื่องความสัมพันธ์ของมนุษย์กับโลกแห่งธรรมชาติ.
Human beings cannot be “against nature” without being
“against ourselves.” We are a part of the natural world just like every other
life form on this planet. Our fantasy that we can use our technological prowess
to completely divorce ourselves from our material, physical reality is just
that—a fantasy. We eat by the grace of nature, not by the grace of Monsanto.
มนุษย์ไม่สามารถ “ต่อต้านธรรมชาติ” โดยไม่ “ต่อต้านพวกเราด้วยกันเอง”. พวกเราเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของโลกธรรมชาติ
เหมือนกับทุกๆ ชีวิตในรูปแบบต่างๆ ในผืนพิภพนี้.
ความเพ้อฝันที่ว่า
เราสามารถใช้พลังที่เหนือกว่าทางเทคโนโลยีในการฉีกตัวเองออกจากความจริงทางวัตถุและกายภาพของเราอย่างสิ่นเชิง
เป็นเพียง—ความฟุ้งซ่านเพ้อฝัน.
เรากินด้วยพรแห่งธรรมชาติ, ไม่ใช่ด้วยพรของมอนซานโต.
For the entire history of homo sapiens, we have always eaten
organic. It’s only been in the last 50-odd years, post World War II, that
wartime chemicals and technologies have found new uses in agriculture.
ตลอดห้วงประวัติศาสตร์ของสายพันธุ์ โฮโม ซาเปี้ยน (จากวานรสู่คน),
พวกเรากินอาหารอินทรีย์มาตลอด. มันเพียงชั่ว
50 กว่าปีก่อนเอง,
หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง, ที่สารเคมีและเทคโนโลยียามสงคราม
ได้ค้นพบวิธีใหม่ในเกษตรกรรม.
The result has been the rapid and wholesale devastation of
vast swaths of our planet—biodiversity giving way to monoculture, killer weeds
and pesticide-resistant superbugs going wild, the weakening and sickening of
every strand of the ecological web of our planet.
ผลคือ หายนะที่เกิดขึ้นอย่างรวดเร็วและราบพนาสูร
เป็นแถบมหาศาลในพิภพของเรา—ความหลากหลายทางชีวภาพได้พ่ายแพ้ต่อพืชเชิงเดี่ยว,
วัชพืชจอมสังหาร และซุปเปอร์แมลงที่ดื้อยา ออกอาละวาด, เส้นใยนิเวศของพิภพทุกๆ
เส้น ล้วนอ่อนแอและล้มป่วย.
The relevant fable to invoke might be the tale of Jack and
the Beanstalk. We might be able to grow a fantastically huge beanstalk if we
fed it with enough chemical fertilizers, and we might even be able to climb it
and bring back a goose that lays golden eggs.
นิทานสอนใจที่น่าจะกระตุ้นให้ฉุกคิด อาจจะเป็นนิทานเรื่อง
แจ๊คและต้นถั่ว.
เราอาจจะสามารถปลูกถั่วที่มีลำต้นใหญ่โตอย่างน่าอัศจรรย์
หากเราใส่ปุ๋ยเคมีมากพอ, และเราอาจแม้แต่จะปีนลำต้นขึ้นไป
และนำห่านที่ออกไข่เป็นทองคำกลับมาได้.
But in the end, that beanstalk will prove to be more
dangerous to us than it’s worth—we’ll have to chop it down, and go back to the
slow but solid organic way of life that has sustained us unfailingly for
thousands of years.
แต่ในตอนจบ, เจ้าถั่วยักษ์นั้น
จะพิสูจน์ว่ามันมีอันตรายมากกว่ามูลค่าของมัน—เราจะต้องโค่นมัน,
และหวนกลับไปวิถีชีวิตอินทรีย์ที่ช้าแต่มั่นคงหนักแน่น ที่ได้ธำรงพวกเรามาหลายพันปี อย่างไม่เคยเหลวไหลผิดพลาด.
Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez teaches comparative literature
and gender studies with an activist bent at Bard College at Simon's Rock in
Great Barrington, MA and blogs at Transition Times.
เจนนิเฟอร์ บราวดีย์ เดอ เฮอนานเดซ สอนวรรณกรรมเปรียบเทียบ และ
เพศสภาพศึกษา และค่อนไปทางนักกิจกรรม ที่ วิทยาลัยบาร์ด แมสซาชูเซ็ท.
Published on Saturday, September 8, 2012 by Common Dreams
ando arike 8 hr ago…
Roger Cohen is the epitome of the smug, complacent
"voice of reason" that the NY Times has perfected as a prophylactic
against radical dissent and non-corporate thought and ideas... In his Op-Ed
(which might as well have been penned at the behest of Monsanto) Cohen uses the
same culture war tactics the Republican Tea-Partiers have lately turned into a
rebellion against science and logic -- "organic" is elitist... A type
of branding catering to the coddled, coastal liberal upper middle classes, Birkenstock
wearers who send their children to private schools, and think they're better
than red-blooded "meat and potatoes" Americans from the heartland...
I'd like to ask Mr. Cohen how he fits the growing epidemic
of farmer suicides in India--perhaps 250,000 in the last 10 years--into his
rosy view of industrial agriculture and genetic engineering. Or the rise of
antibotic resistant diseases, driven by industrial ag's reliance on antibiotics
in meat production. Or the predatory land grabs sweeping Africa, where big industrial
ag corporations are driving traditional ("organic") subsistence
farmers from their land. F-ck you, Mr. Cohen!
Tell this to Monsanto on September 17 and beyond -- see
http://occupy-monsanto.com/
28 /
Siouxrose • 8 days ago • parent
Thanks for this right-on post! Those who don't believe in
The Infinite or the law of karma probably have an easier time selling their
souls for the temporal benefits a high salary can provide. Anyone who's good
with language can use it to raise awareness or mangle it. Mr. Cohen has chosen
the latter, and probably justifies it to himself by rationalizing that he must
tackle the high costs of good housing as his family's breadwinner, added to
keeping the kids in secure private schools.
6 /
Zack Domike • 6 days ago • parent
The aim of Monsanto is to have all food production under
corpoorate dominion, and only corporate employees with proper papers (or radio
chips) will receive " _fill_in_the _blank_" and be protected by the
Monsanto Security Contractor.
3 /
Lora Jasan • 12 hours ago • parent
I keep seeing/hearing this - a strange sort of conspiracy
taking place between monsanto and other corps who are hellbent on complete
control of the food supply. But I have not yet seen any real evidence of this -
only evidence of what we already knew, evidence of greed.
Can anyone provide links to evidence that such a conspiracy
exists?
1 /
Robert Carter • 4 hours ago • parent
@Lora Jasan: Right. I don't think Monsanto increasing food
volumes will reduce hunger in the World all the same.
0 /
Robert Carter • 4 hours ago • parent
I agree but are there any in America not selling their souls
for the devaluing mighty broken USD?
Yanks with Spiritual soul conscious, or should I say any
conscience are rather rare breeds?
Prey tell how did Aftican farmers get into India to cause
farmer suicides? It's a bit like telling me the GMO's or chemical pesticides
etc were not here to start with. As I said did we get a pipeline from other
planets? Now we hafe Africans harming Indian farmers, And USA more military
suicides back home than deaths in US wars, did iot ever occurb the suicides are
another cause, like they ae tired of coming home to wife nagging after vthey
learn for have sex variety when away?
PS: I am still anti Monsanto after I see so many Agent
Orange deformities and still born of SRV still persisting and no compo from the
big Monsantio here, they paid off their own and hang the rest, they are back in
Vietnam with GMO corn, the cause of Mexican farmer suicides?
0 /
Stuart Collier • 7 days ago
I read Mr. Cohen's opinions then went to comments to comment
but they were closed. I am a beekeeper who sees where his deadly pesticides
philosophy leads--dead honey bees and pesticides in the honey you eat. Here in
Birmingham, the Whole Foods store is located in the richest and most Republican
neighborhood so those who vote anti-environmental Republicanism can buy the
unpoisoned food they oppose at the polls and in regulatory action.
12 /
gardenernorcal • 7 days ago • parent
Whole Foods is not the only source of organic foods. You can
grow your own, you can go to local farmers' markets and most major supermarket
chains have had organic departments for years. But it does point out how the
01% live one way and the rest of us are expected live another.
3 /
Zack Domike • 6 days ago • parent
Food Economics is a historical example of Mis-Management of
Distribution, but traditional cooking techniques are also to blame for food
shortages.
SOLUTION: The only remaining recipe in the Bible is for a
super-nutritious raw bread made with sprouted grain.
If industries were to replace grinding dried grains to make
starch spikes and intestinal blockage paste, also known as 'Breads' or 'Pasta.'
To add insult to injury, the dry powder requires much labour plus the
sacrificial practice of fuel burn - a complete reversal of Appropriate
Technology.
MONSANTO wants to control seeds, which are "The Staff
of Life."
2 /
Robert Carter • 3 hours ago • parent
yep, but I'm 68 and going fine on a mostly white bread and
cigarettersd diet. Just reduced both to less in a day, 6-8 smokes and 4
Vietnamese bread rolls, New Zealand chedda and no meat, no sugar, water with
green tea. Yummy. IU had a stenosis aorta valve and used Graviola leaf tea 60ml
a day 2 months on and 1 month off for two years no stenosis now says the trusty
Dopla uoltrasound now? If I was any stronger I'd rust at 98km/6 foot.
0 /
Peggy Luhrs • 8 days ago
From Vandana Shiva's Navdanya blog:
A series of media reports have covered another study by.A
team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health
Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s
Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo
Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of
existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find
strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health
risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can
reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.”This study can hardly be called the
“most comprehensive meta analysis.” looked for their study; the researchers
sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to
analyze. This already exposes the bias. The biggest meta analysis on Food and
agriculture has been done by the United Nations as the International assessment
of agricultural Knowledge, Science and technology (IAASTD). 400 scientists from
across the world worked for 4 years to analyze all publications on different
approaches to agriculture, and concluded that chemical industrial agriculture
is no longer an option, only ecological farming is. Yet the Stanford team
presents itself as the most comprehensive study, and claims there are no health
benefits from organic agriculture,even though there were no long-term studies
of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced
food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days
to two years. Two days does not make a scientific study.No impact can be
measured in a 2 day study. This is junk science parading as science.One
principle about food and health is that our food is as healthy as the soil on
which it grows is. And it is as deficient as the soils become with chemical
farming.
12 /
Jag_Levak • 8 days ago
While I agree we do need to reduce the human population,
there are additional rebuttals can be made to Cohen's canard that we need the
high-yields that only chemical farming can produce. First, we are currently
throwing away a large portion of the food that is now being produced (something
like 40% according to a recent study I saw). And a lot of that has to do with
transportation wastage--something local organic farmers have much less of.
Second, large proportions of agriculture are currently producing non-food
crops--like corn for ethanol. Third, organic farming currently averages lower
yields per acre, but that is largely due to monocrop farming (which is
currently favored mostly because it is less labor intensive than mixed crop
farming) and newly converted organic farms also pull the averages down because
it takes years to rebuild and revive dead and depleted soil. But some pilot
farms have demonstrated that mixed crop organic farming can not only come close
to matching the yields of chem-farming, in some cases they have surpassed it.
Yes, it requires more labor, but it also requires much less fossil fuel
support. Which brings up a fourth problem with Cohen's yield thesis--it
presumes we will be able to ramp up our fossil fuel consumption endlessly to
meet any new food demands. In reality, what he's proposing is increased
dependence on a commodity that is only going to become more expensive (to say
nothing of more destructive) from here on out.
What drives the business of agriculture is not the food
yield per acre, but the profit yield per acre, and a system which is locked
into ever-increasing costs of production is ultimately going to prove
unsustainable, particularly when the industrial production efficiency of
chem-farming is already just about maxed out. But pilot studies are showing
there is a lot of as-yet untapped production potential in organic farming. The
bad news is that we can't simply transfer over our conventional farming
practices, and we are back at the bottom of the learning curve. The good news
is that there is lots of room for improvement from here. And the sooner we stop
listening to shill dead-enders like Cohen, and start learning better ways to
farm, the easier the transition away from our current doomed model is going to
be.
10 /
Matt Heins • 7 days ago • parent
High yields from milpa like polycultures is an attractive
alternative to chemically treated monocultures, as long as that little labor
problem is solved, that is.
But genetic engineering would benefit such a system.
And can we really hit 300 bushels of corn an acre with such
techniques? This is what high end industrial farms are gettin in Iowa nowadays.
0 /
Jag_Levak • 7 days ago • parent
The maximum idealized monocrop yield is probably always
going to be a bit higher for industrial chem-farming. But it's a fragile
system, and it doesn't take much to knock down idealized yields. Monocultures
are more vulnerable to pest and disease outbreaks, and high productivity
strains tend to be less adaptable to less than ideal weather conditions. Iowa's
corn yield this year, for example, is projected to be about 137 bpa. But it's been
a great year for sorghum growers, because it is a hardier, more heat and
drought tolerant plant, so it's outproducing corn, even though corn has a
higher production capacity under ideal circumstances.
For corn in particular, current best practices for organics
yield between 80% and 90% of conventional averages, but that's after decades of
breeding and engineering corn for conventional methods, and it's too early to
say organic practices could not similarly benefit from breeding--except
probably in the direction of having more diverse strains for better pest and
disease resistance. (And I think we could do a lot to make up for the reduction
in corn yields if we would quit burning up so much of it in our cars.)
But we can no longer look at a boosted per-acre food yield
in isolation. If a 20% higher crop yield comes at the cost of massive dead
zones in the ocean, the net result may actually be a decrease in the available
global food supply.
I do think we are going to have to go through a transition
period of mixed farming, but I think the labor problem is best handled, for
now, by going back to small farms, and I think the transition to organic could
be greatly helped by ending massive agribusiness subsidies and switching to
policies and investments that would actually help and encourage smaller,
high-diversity eco-farming.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
7 /
theoldgoat • 7 days ago • parent
Do you know of any proposed legislation, academic research
into transition models for large scale farm operations?
I would love to see draft proposals of transition by land
area percentage of conventional chem-farming that also include re-foresting of
buffer zones on rivers. Something along the lines of - if a large scale
producer is receiving subsidies, they must establish a given width of forest
strip to absorb run off; etc.
1 /
Suspiria_de_profundis • 8 days ago
Added to this Stanford University is a Private Institution
which raises funds from Corporations so as to function.
Were they to come out with a report that concluded that
Organic foods healthier and more nutritous they would lose funding.
Whether the report they issued is based on sound science or
not does not change this apparent conflict of interest. We really can NOT rely
on "Scientific Studies" anymore as so many institutions are co-opted.
As example Mosanto purchased a Research firm that was
investigating the effects of GMO foods on the honeybee population.
Are further reports from this firm to be seen as sound
science?
It was also recently revealed that the Scientist who had
headed research into a paper released that concluded there no evidence fracking
contaminated water supplies, was in fact funded by the Natural Gas industry.
Two reporters who tried to reveal the harmful effects of BGH
on the Human Population were fired and the Court ruled that the Media agency
that fired them had NO obligation to report the truth and only had an
obligation to their shareholders to produce profits.
We must rely on our own intuition and our own common sense
and it makes no sense to me whatsoever that Chemicals used to kill bugs and
beetles and weeds have no ill effect on my health if I consume them.
7 /
Siouxrose • 8 days ago • parent
Great info. In a morally compromised cultural environment, apparent truth is
determined by who funds the study. The FDA allows drug companies to monitor
their own research, while the current deregulatory craze allows many businesses
to theoretically "police" themselves. The now pervasive lawless
climate is best explained in Ray McGovern's essay published today, especially
the quote taken from the late sage, Judge Brandeis.
"What leaped to mind is the famous (but largely
unobserved) warning of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1928 – a strong admonition
with such sad relevance today:
“The
government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the
whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law
unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means —
to declare that the government may commit crimes — would bring terrible
retribution.”
Bush's swaggering disregard for life has factored into the
gun violence still breaking out all over. Of course Obama just gives the whole
thing a cool facade of normalcy.
2 /
theoldgoat • 8 days ago • parent
I'd add that the agrochemical pesticide industry has
intentionally fostered an entomological paranoia accompanying the perpetual
growth/power/profit lens. One of the most important dimensions of life cycles
on earth is excluded and exterminated in bald faced application of technology
claiming to be science.
3 /
Suspiria_de_profundis • 7 days ago • parent
Correct. My cousin mentioned this to me when I walked
through one of his fields and mentioned all the grasshoppers.
He let out a guffaw and pointed out that all the neighboring
farmers, upon seeing grasshoppers would spray pesticides to get rid of them at
great cost to the environment and to their pocketbook.
He then pointed out that over half the various species of
grasshoppers were in fact BENEFICIAL to the growing of crops as in they will
eat the weeds that the same farmer spraying for grasshoppers will then have to
spray the crop for to get rid of weeds.
They also act as a food source to other beneficial insects.
He does not spray at all for them and his yields are always
higher with less input costs.
4 /
MonkesTale • 7 days ago • parent
@Suspiria_de_profundis: I noticed much higher numbers of
grasshoppers in my soybeans this year. It didn't even dawn on me to consider
spraying poison on them until right now. Trying to kill every bug is just nuts.
0 /
Elizabeth Tjader • 8 days ago −
Right on Jennifer!
It is this kind of glaring ignorance, myopia, prevarication
and anthropocentrism that will drive this planet and its non human habitants to
the point of no return. This is total gibberish. Anyone who has tasted the
difference between an organic tomato, apple, string bean, broccoli, my God, you
name it, and a store bought, mass produced, chemically infused replica of what
it's supposed to be can tell you there is a huge difference between organic and
conventional not only in taste, but in conscience and everything else. Not to
mention all the great beneficial insects that show up when a garden is allowed
to grow organically or the fact the soil is alive and rich.
Cohen is nuts. What an ignorant, pathetic moron! And shame
on the NY Times for featuring such a dunderhead!
..
Nature child3
must be kismet because my standing “satur-date”, marcas
hernandez just now headed home. most of my neighbors, rather dismissive of
hispanic folk, remain blithely unaware of this man’s long experience and
knowledge gained from a career in landscaping, view him as cheap meskin labor.
marcas, the son of itinerate farm workers, attended school one whole day, but
felt so out of place amongst the strange english-speaking kids that he begged
his parents to let him stay laboring with the adults in the fields. today, he
speaks fluently without accent in both english and español. he can’t read but
can do math in his head. about a year and ½ ago leg injury became infected and
marcas stopped by to say, “goodbye, i can’t do my mowing jobs any more.” this
past winter a neighbor announced that she’d heard that marc had a foot
amputated. oh gosh, i felt nauseous! then about a month ago i answered a
powerful knock on the door to find marc standing there with two feet planted
firmly on my porch. he couldn’t afford insurance and couldn’t see a doctor, but
his leg grew so puss-filled and angry he agreed to let his family rush him to
an emergency room. the er physician said “one day later and you’d have been in
the morgue!” they saved the leg, but the draining took several grueling months.
now, to kismet part. marcus hernandez, perhaps a distant
relative of jennifers family brought up the subject of cancer and how we lived
healthier in “the good old days.” “it’s all those chemicals,” he thinks. well,
he may be illiterate, but he’s sure a lot smarter than most of my
educa..indoctrinated and clueless limbaugh-lovin’ neighbors realize
1 /
Siouxrose • 8 days ago • parent
He is not nuts. He's well-paid to push the lie that Monsanto
is the answer to the world's hunger problems. And the anti-nature comment is
the central cornerstone of his blatant ignorance.
Karmic justice would have him choke on Monsanto's bio-tech
corn kernels. (Surviving the encounter, he'd become a "Born Again"
advocate for 100% natural organic products!)
I agree with you. This is one of Jennifer Browdy's best
essays. She hits just about every point on the head.
3 /
Julie Dahlman • 8 days ago • parent
You're always a delight to read and enjoy your splendid use
of verbs and adjectives and always depth. Thanks
1 /
Samalabear • 7 days ago
Better fed, living longer through pesticides and all that
other happy horse manure. We're sure doing something wrong because I don't
remember all those outbreaks of food when I was growing up. But I do believe
from the get-go, especially in suburbia, we should have been teaching, and
encouraging, families to have vegetable gardens. There is no excuse for this
not to be the case on Long Island. By the same token, we also shouldn't have
destroyed all the farmland we have out here to build more and more luxury
housing.
It really is about sustainability, and if you check out all
the wonderful small- and largescale gardeners that make terrific videos of what
they do on YouTube -- for which I am so grateful -- you won't find a lot of
elitism there. You'll find a lot of fascinating, fun, imaginative, very
down-to-earth people with a lot of good tips.
The other day I discovered a young man with a series of
videos and I learned about a home recipe for curing late-season blight on my
tomatoes. It works and it's cheap.
Now if you want to talk about elitism check out the
neighbors with perfect green lawns and little yellow danger flags every single
month. Bet you if they vegetable gardens in the back it's a Monsanto paradise.
5 /
gardenernorcal • 8 days ago
"In the midst of the fad few questions have been asked.
But the fact is that buying organic baby food, a growing sector, is like paying
to send your child to private school: It is a class-driven decision that
demonstrates how much you love your offspring but whose overall impact on
society is debatable. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09...
Choosing to purchase and eat organic is no more a
"fad" than eating "kosher" is. And it's not class driven. I
am poor and I choose organic for some of the same reasons Jews eat kosher. I am
betting Mr. Cohen has some investments in the conventional agriculture sector
and the boom in organic produce and goods is cutting into his capital gains.
"Logically, the organic movement should favor
genetically modified produce. If you cannot use pesticides or fertilizers, you
might at least want to modify your crops so they are more resilient and
plentiful. "
When kosher includes cross-breeding and grafting perhaps we
can talk. If agribusiness planted appropriate crops in appropriate places at
appropriate times they'd be naturally more resilient and plentiful. But that's
not how agribusiness works.
5 /
Yunzer • 7 days ago • parent
Ther facts are that organic groceries are too costly for
most poor USAns.
0 /
kitty • 6 days ago • parent
I buy my clothes from the thrift store and ride a city bus
everywhere so I can afford to eat organic. It's all about priorities.
6 /
gardenernorcal • 7 days ago • parent −
There are a lot of things that are too costly for poor
citizens everywhere. Have any university studies been done proving generic
shoes are just as good for your feet as a pair of Nike's are? I question the
motives of this study.
We may all be scrounging out of the 01%'s garbage cans soon,
we can only hope they choose to buy organic. But knowing their perversity
they'll have their hired help spray their leavings with chemicals so no one
else can benefit from their waste.
0 /
Rydrury
he goes on to smear the organic movement as an elitist,
pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.
“To feed a planet of 9 billion people,” he says, “we are
going to need high yields not low yields; we are going to need genetically
modified crops; we are going to need pesticides and fertilizers and other
elements of the industrialized food processes that have led mankind to be
better fed and live longer than at any time in history.
The most effective way to respond to elite propagandists is
to first declare them to be the criminals they are, then explain why they are,
then illustrate the people's vision and the policy that manifests it.
Roger Cohen perpetrates horrendous crimes against humanity
and the biosphere with his hideous propaganda, such as quoted above, because
that propaganda misinforms the people to achieve elite domination/oppression
over them.
The organic movement is part of the people's agenda to
emancipate themselves and the biosphere from elite oppression/destruction. The
movement is vulnerable to hijack by elites as we see in the hierarchy setup for
organic certification but we have our boot on the necks of the bureaucrats.
They know we don't need them, but that they need us.
Regarding feeding 9 billion people, that is the imperative
of the people themselves, and the people are doing just fine, so no help from
elites is needed, eh? You need their help? I tell you what you really need is
your boot on their neck. Oh and elites didn't cause the people to live longer
lives. The people accomplished that themselves by wrangling away from the
elites control over their water and food supplies across the latter half of the
19th, and first half of the 20th centuries.
I think I sufficiently smashed Cohen's propaganda for my
personal satisfaction so I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to
discredit the rest of it.
You can tell the elites are frantic. They can't even think
straight. They know their doom is imminent today. And the meek shall inherit
the earth, i.e. the human heart will conquer the human ego, soon, in the
context of societal convention, and will jam it back into the cage where it
belongs. Exciting times for the people!
5 /
natureschild3 • 7 days ago • parent
"the meek shall inherit the earth, i.e. the human heart
will conquer the human ego"
ooh! i sure like that take, 'rtdrury'!
0 /
Chris Dudley • 7 days ago
Thanks for taking cohen's deeply flawed opinion piece to
task. I just hope he is well paid to rewrite the glossy brochures. Btw, we
already grow enough food to feed the world. The problem is distribution, which
is probably too elusive a subject for cohen's pesticide adled mind to wax
indignantly about.
4 /
terry aden • 8 days ago
Much of the toxicological data about pesticides and GMO's,
whether peer reviewed scientific studies or EPA/MSDS registration info, never
makes its way into the mainstream press.
No surprise there.
But you can keep up on such info via an excellent monthly
newsletter called Our Toxic Times. OTT is available for the price of an annual
donation of any amount, to:
Chemical Injury Information Network
PO Box 301
White Sulphur Springs, MT 59645
Both CIIN and OTT are citizen-run, non-profit endeavors.
They've been publishing continuously since 1990, have tens of thousands of
subscribers around the world, and have won numerous alternate media awards for
the vital public services they provide.
Their website is ciin.org
Email: chemicalinjury@ciin.org
Definitely worth checking out.
3 /
gardenernorcal • 7 days ago
It just dawned on me why the timing and all the hooplah over
this story. It's a knee jerk reaction to the GMO labeling legislation that is
in works or has passed in a few states and is gaining popularity in EU
countries. They fear losing market share.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...
2 /
theoldgoat • 7 days ago • parent
relative to your observation:
http://rt.com/news/monsanto-br...
1 /
gardenernorcal • 7 days ago • parent
"In essence, Monsanto argues that once a farmer buys
their seed, they have to pay the global bio-tech giant a yearly fee in
perpetuity – with no way out." (from your link)
That's enough for me to never buy their seeds. I know of no
other seed company that has that sort condition on their sale of seed.
"When dairy producers that did not use Monsanto’s
products began labeling their products as “Hormone Free” or “Organic”, Monsanto
slapped them with a lawsuit as recently as 2008, claiming the labels amounted
to negative advertising against hormone-produced milk."
""Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety
of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring
its safety is FDA's job.""
Got to love it! They don't have to vouch for the safety of
their "biotech" food, but organic growers have to prove their's is
better? Strange world we live in. Monsanto is worried. I am not sure why since
many of Obama's appointments are Monsanto or Dupont alumni.
3 /
theoldgoat • 7 days ago • parent
Monsanto has its roots in the military mind - to kill -
attempting to morph into a translation of 'competition'.
One image that comes to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
1 /
gardenernorcal • 7 days ago • parent −
A few more good links:
http://www.nationofchange.org/...
http://archive.constantcontact...
http://archive.constantcontact...
As pinched as my meager food budget is I'll not buy Monsanto
adulterated food if I can tell it from anything else. Of couse they are going
to great pains to make that virtually impossible.
0 /
Theoldgoat
We really do live in emblematic times. Thanks for the links
- this from the last one:
In their amicus brief,
the law professors
point out that, "broad standing to challenge the validity of patents
ensures that the courts can effectively play their critical role in screening
out invalid patents." They add, "In actions challenging the validity
of a patent, the alleged injury is not only the risk of an infringement suit,
but a present restraint on economic activity due to the presence of a
potentially invalid exclusive right."
The law professors went on to note, "But the validity
of issued patents is uncertain until they are tested in court. This uncertainty
creates real and present risks for persons wishing to engage in economic
activity that might be the subject of an issued patent....When a person is
deterred from undertaking valuable activity by the risk that the activity may
encroach on another's exclusive rights, that person has incurred an actual,
concrete and particularized injury."
"We are grateful for the brilliant and powerful amici
briefs submitted to the appeals court by these two stellar groups, supporting
our family farmers' quest for justice," said Maine organic seed farmer Jim
Gerritsen, President of lead Plaintiff, Organic Seed Growers and Trade
Association. "An erroneous interpretation of law by a single judge is not
going to cause our farmers to abandon our rights to farm the way we choose, to
grow good food and good seed for our families and for our customers, free from
Monsanto's trespass and contamination. Denial of the property rights of
American farmers is an attack on the property rights of every American. We will
fight until family farmers receive justice."
0 /
gardenernorcal • 7 days ago • parent
@theoldgoat: I hear you and applaud these farmers' courage.
The recent court decision that allows for gene patents in
light of how Monsanto has abused their's is scary stuff in deed.
0 /
NowMoreThanEver • 7 days ago −
Good work, Jennifer. This is a big improvement over your
last commentary wherein you posited the belief that our death squad
leader-in-chief was actually (deep down) a great humanitarian who shared your
humanistic principles.
On the other hand, "fatty foods" is too general a
term to use to condemn certain foods. Some fatty foods are very healthy and
should be eaten a lot. The unhealthy ones that should be avoided as much as
possible are the PUFAs - highly processed polyunsaturated oils such as corn
oil, soy oil, cottonseed oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil and trans fats, of
course.
The healthiest ones are monounsaturated oils such as extra
virgin olive oil and saturated fats such as coconut oil, butter, and meat from
pasture-fed animals. The negative propaganda against the health benefits of
these healthiest of fats is slowly but surely being overturned. But it is a
slow process overturning 40 years of harmful, adverse corporate-serving health
propaganda that has accompanied the greatest obesity and diabetes epidemic
we've ever seen.
2 /
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น