Fatal Harvest: overcoming the

ecological tragedy of industrial

agriculture
Miguel A. Altieri
University of California, Berkeley

The expansion of modern

agriculture
Worldwide cropland increased in 50 years
from 265 million hectares to 1,5 billion
today
These lands are planted to 12 species of
grain crops, 23 vegetable species and 35
fruit and nut species
91% of cropland devoted to monocultures
of cotton, maize,wheat, rice and soybeans

The success of modern agriculture

More cereals and animals per hectare
(globally tripling of cereal production in last
50 years)
UK wheat yields rose from 2,5 to 8 t/ha
more food produced by very few people; <
2 % population are farmers in USA
more meat and milk per animal
USA: dairy cows-8,000 kg milk/yr -up 3 X
in 50 years

Great Progress-but is it?

Striking increases in: scale of production,
concentration at every stage in food chain, use of
agrochemicals ( globally 20 fold increase in use of
fertilizers, > 4 billion pounds of pesticides)
To succeed US farmers had to get bigger: 4
million farms lost in 50 years (219/day), but farm
size increased (concentration)
Productivity increases,commodity prices fall- food
stays cheap, but farmers go out of business unless
subsidized (96-98/$23 billion, 10% recipients
collected 61%)

Environmental costs of Fatal

Harvest in USA
17,8 million tons of fertilizers and 1,2 billion
pounds of pesticides are applied annually
In California pesticide use increased from 161 to
212 million pounds of active ingredient despite
farm acreage remaining constant
27% irrigated land damaged by salinization
Soil erosion averages 185tons/ha/yr reducing
yields by 13%

The futile chemical warfare

against pests
More than 450 species of arthropods resistant to >
1000 different pesticides
US agricultural losses to pests reached 32%
between 1942-50 and 37% between 84-90
environmental and social costs of pesticide use
reaches 8 billion annually in the USA
1999 FDA found pesticide residues in 60% fruits,
29% seafood, 29% vegetables, 38% grain
products.

Council for Biotechnology

Information
Formed by Monsanto and 6 other biotech
companies with a reported war chest of $250
million
TV and newspapers ads, websites, pro-GMO
children coloring books
Council advertisements concentrate on the need of
GMOs in Third World: biotech will improve food
supplies (99% of GMO acres and in USA, Canada
and Argentina)

Some basic questions

Are corporations using LDC hunger to justify
GMOs without explaining how GMOs will
mitigate hunger?
How can Malthusian biotechnologists explain that
genetic modification will feed the hungry in India
when 36 million stored excess grain will not?
Such overstock storage costs 1.7 billion/year
How to explain hunger in many African countries
that are net agro-exporters?

The real problems

Hunger and food insecurity exist because
people are poor ( no purchasing power for
food) More than 1 billion live on <$1/day
Lack of access to land or agricultural
resources to produce it (lack of land reform,
redistribution of wealth)
economic policies that discriminate against
LDC agriculture ( subsidies in North,
dumping, restricted markets,etc)

The truth about hunger

Hunger is not caused by lack of genetic
engineering to produce more food.
Where hunger is prevalent there is an excess
of staples
Today there is enough food to provide every
human being with 3500 calories per day,
that is about 4.3 pounds every person every
day.
7 out of 10 lbs of grain are fed to cattle

Globalization, Free Trade and

Hunger
In l986 Haiti imported 7,000 tons of rice (most
grown in island)
After opening its economy, rice flooded from
USA (where is subsidized) first as food aid and
then as part of free trade
By 1996 Haiti imported 196,000 tons of rice at a
cost of $100 million.
Peasants were displaced, cost of rice went up,
hunger increased

FOOD AID?
Key US foreign policy component
tied to free trade reforms ( open economies and
market reforms)
additional subsidy to US exports-mechanism to
place excess production
lowers domestic food prices, exports to 3rd
markets by recipient countries prohibited
US ships must be used, 70% food as CCC credit
major entry point for transgenic crops

International Development Aid?

ICs: 0.15-0,35 of GNP (target 0.7%)
Latin America-1997: $6,27 billion, 14% of
interest on debt paid by LAC
Aid < 1% of total balance of foreign debt
for every $ invested, $2-3 return in form of
goods and services. 1960-67 US invested in
LAC $3,2 billion with a profit of $9.6 bn.
Decreasing interest rate on debt by 1%,
better deal than all AID received.

The real costs of genetic pollution

GMOs cannot increase food production and
at the same time repel pests and resist
herbicides. There is a thermodynamic cost.
Traits of genetically altered grain spread to
local varieties favored by small farmers,
causing dilution of natural stability of these
races
Transgenic crops in centers of origin will
accelerate the loss of indigenous knowledge
that make systems sustainable.

Ecological effects of Bt corn

Rapid emergence of resistance by pests
Impacts on non target Lepidoptera
(swallowtail, monarch butterflies, etc)
Tri-trophic effects on predators and parasites
Exudates with Bt toxin released into soil,
residues containing protein bind to soil
colloids, remaining up to 230 days with bioinsecticidal activity
Contamination of local varieties and organic
farms

Steps towards sustainability

Diversify crops and animal enterprises
Substitute ecological management for offfarm inputs (agrochemicals,fuel,etc)
Maximize use and recycling of on-farm
resources
conserve soil, water and genetic diversity
reduce energy use (machinery, equipment)
and keep costs down
Favor direct and local marketing

Velvetbean in Central America

Mucuna fixes 150 Kg N/ha/year, produces
30-50 tonnes of biomass/ha/yr
45,000 familes growing Mucuna
crop yields up from 400-600 Kg/ha to 20002500 kg/ha while conserving/regenerating
soil in hillsides

Prettys report
208 projects/initiatives
9 million farmers adopted sustainable
practices
28,9 million hectares (3 % of the 900
million hectares of arable land in LDCs)
food production per household increased
on average 1,7 tons per year

Elements of a vision for a new

agriculture
Local production (direct farmer-consumer
links)
small scale and family operated
community based
biologically and culturally diverse
economically viable
socially just and participatory
humane and compatible with the wild

Multifunctional benefits of
small farms
Contribute to biodiversity -more diversified
Responsible management of NR in 60% of
farms < 180 acres
community empowerment >equitable
economic opportunities and >social capital
places for families, intergenerational
personal connection to food and nature
vital economic foundation of many
communities

Farm size versus output

USA-1992
4 acre farm averaged gross output of
$7424/acre and net $1400/acre
58 acre farm: gross $552/acre, net $82
1350 acre farm: gross $191, net $39
6700 acre farm: gross $63, net 12

Factors explaining higher output

and efficiency of small farms

Use of more species of plants and animals

diversity of crops of higher value
labor and resource intense use of land
efficient use of local, on-farm resources
labor quality ( more skills and stewardship)

Requirements of a sustainable
agriculture
Land reform and food crops out of WTO
Just prices to farmers (no subsidies and
dumping), fair trade and local markets
Conducive policies to scale-up successes
Protect and re-direct public goods research
Political will
Consumers awareness and solidarity
Moratorium on transgenic crops and no
patents on food crops