Sustainability on Steroids: Organic Farmer Grosses $100K an Acre

© Natural Society

Natural Society | Mar 4, 2015 | Christina Sarich

Could he have found the most effective way to grow food?

We need GMOs to feed the world like a fish needs dry land. A controversial farmer in California is proving that a veritable bumper crop can be had using new farming methods that don’t require GMO pesticides, herbicides, or even weeding, and require 10 times less water than the average farm. The best part – he earned $100K per acre last season without even harvesting all of his land.

What kind of super-fertilizer allows Paul Kaiser to grow so much food on a mere 8 acres? Lot’s of rotten food scraps and rotten plants – otherwise known as compost. And he uses loads of it.

He uses farming practices both old, and cutting-edge-new so well that agricultural specialists from University of California at Davis who have tested his top soil can drive a four-foot steel pole all the way through his fields. This, as opposed to most parts of California, where it would hit infertile hard-pan in less than 12 inches.

Last year, Kaiser’s farm located in Sonoma Valley, CA grossed more than $100,000 an acre, too. This is ten times the average for most farmers of this area, even in lucrative wine-country.

His farm is no mega-farm, either. At just under 8 acres, he is beating even other large organic farms because the soil is still so damaged in other conventional and organic farms alike. He is certainly out-performing Big Ag methods of farming as his unique farming practices have turned the soil into a goldmine.

Kaiser also doesn’t plow his fields (which means a lot less work) and he uses around 10 times less water than his peers. His neighbors still run sprinklers, but he waters for about an hour a week, using almost exclusively drip irrigation. This means that while California is still recovering from a drought, most farmers are watering the air – since most of the water is lost to evaporation. Kaiser is watering – how novel an idea – just his plants.

Read: Russians Prove Small-Scale Organic CAN Feed the World

Kaiser uses a thick, acrylic blanket to
keep both soil and compost piles
covered. Most farmers, if the cover
soil at all, us immense plastic
sheets, which end up each
year in the landfill. “These
blankets last me 10 years!”

Many California farmers recently spent millions tanking in water to try to save their crops, while Kaiser just made a healthy annual salary for even most high-paid lawyers. Water was being sold on the black market for ridiculous prices, but you can bet Kaiser wasn’t paying them.

Kaiser is a bit of a mad genius, and a dreamer, too. He rattles off statistics at local talks he gives about exactly how he grows so sustainably, often including surprising facts. For example, he leaves his roots in the ground after harvest to feed the worms. He sounds a bit like a Martin Luther King for growing green:

“Sustainable farming methods are just one corner,” he said. “Economic sustainability is another, and social sustainability is the third.”

During a recent Sunday farmers’ market, representatives of several different agricultural organizations approached Kaiser, each asking him for advice. Now, when billed for talks, he often packs the house.

Kaiser envisions small farms near every city around the globe, even in the most dry, arid climates, and with the proof of his own sweat, and soil, I believe his dream is possible.

Additional Sources:

Article images from Craftsmanship.net

Industrial Vs Organic Farming Myths Busted

Natural Blaze | Mar 3, 2015

How can we feed the world—today and tomorrow?

The biggest players in the food industry—from pesticide pushers to fertilizer makers to food processors and manufacturers—spend billions of dollars every year not selling food, but selling the idea that we need their products to feed the world. But, do we really need industrial agriculture to feed the world? Can sustainably grown food deliver the quantity and quality we need—today and in the future? Our first Food MythBusters film takes on these questions in under seven minutes. So next time you hear them, you can too.


Visit Food Myths

Why conventional agriculture should be banned

© Natural News

Natural News | Feb 26, 2015 | Joel Edwards

When chemicals were first introduced in farming, everyone marveled at what they could do. Yields were dramatically increased. In the beginning, the soil was so healthy, any damage done by chemical fertilizers was imperceptible, and pests had yet to evolve resistance to the insecticides. Our technologies were exported around the world as a revolution in agriculture - the green revolution.

Chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones, factory farms, and genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. It just keeps coming. Almost no one calls it the green revolution anymore because there is nothing green about it, at least not in the modern ecologically friendly meaning of the word green.

Downsides to the Green Revolution 

There are a number of problems brought on by conventional agriculture's techniques. Conventional methods are inhumane to animals; they spread disease and pollution and degrade our nation's soil and water. In the interests of sustainability, protecting our nation's resources and improving our health, conventional agriculture needs to be banned, both in the U.S. and abroad.

A return to organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of chemicals and encourages crop rotation, will protect our nation's arable land, increase the nutritional value of our food, and dramatically reduce our food's toxicity.

Toxic Food 

Yes, our food is toxic when grown by conventional means. Ninety-three percent of Americans tested by the CDC had metabolites of chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxin in their urine. Chlorpyrifos has been banned for use in homes because it has been linked to autoimmune diseases and neurological damage, but it is still commonly used on golf courses and in bait containers, and it is sprayed all over our food.

Over 99% of Americans tested, tested positive for exposure to DDT. DDT has been banned from use in the U.S. since 1972. But it's still perfectly legal to manufacture it in the U.S. ship it to Mexico and other countries, and then have it sprayed on food, and then sell the food to the U.S. DDT has been linked to various cancers and birth defects. It is a persistent toxin that stays in the environment for an extended period of time.

The government sets limits on how much of each pesticide can be on our food, but there is no limit to the number of different approved pesticides that can be on our food or the total amount of chemical contamination. The Pesticide Action Network tells us that Americans are exposed to an average of 10-13 pesticides every day.

As a last resort, organic farmers do use pesticides; however, organic farmers use pesticides that are plant based. These bio-chemicals naturally, quickly decompose. In contrast, conventional agriculture uses a vast array of chemicals, most of them synthetic. There are over 600 pesticides used in the United States. Many of these chemicals are known to last for hundreds or thousands of years before breaking down, and they are toxic to both humans and animals. The degree of exposure to these chemicals directly affects one's risk of developing numerous cancers, especially cancer of the brain, prostate cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma.

If growing nutrient deficient, chemical laden food isn't bad enough, conventional agriculture has gone even further by genetically modifying our food to make it easier to grow at an even higher cost to the consumer's health. Many genetically modified foods are modified to produce pesticides within the plant. GMOs radically alter the microorganisms in the soil, damaging the soil's fertility. GMOs introduce new allergens, new toxins, and unknown proteins into our bodies.

"Every day we make life or death decisions, decisions about what we eat. This may sound melodramatic, but it's true." Superfoods RX

Studies have repeatedly shown that the nutritional content of organic food is dramatically superior to the nutritional content of conventionally grown food. Before the advent of today's conventional agriculture, our food contained more nutrients. Organic agriculture's predominant strategy is to cultivate nutrient rich soil. In order to add nutrients back into the soil, organic agriculture uses crop rotation and natural fertilizers. This produces healthy plants, which makes for healthy food.

What About the Soil 

We must protect our nation's arable land in order to protect our food supply for future generations. With approximately 18% to 19% of America's land being arable, we have the world's most abundant farming resources. Even though agriculturally viable resources are obviously of great economic value to the entire nation, our nation's soil is treated as though it were disposable. Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and petroleum-based fertilizers strip the soil of nutrients and kill beneficial organisms such as earthworms, predatory insects, and microorganisms. In order to grow anything in such chemical laden soil, more chemicals are added. This process degrades the topsoil and causes salts to build up in the land, leaving barren dirt. After this process strips the land of its agricultural viability, conventional agribusiness moves on, acquiring more farmland. Then the process is repeated, rendering more land barren. By comparison, organic farming replenishes the soil through crop rotation, natural fertilizers, and the use of time-honored, natural techniques.

Deadly Germs 

A whopping 50% of antibiotic use is not for human beings but for livestock. The media is constantly warning about the dangers of overuse of antibiotics. The concern is that overuse (and abuse) of antibiotics can breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

It is commonplace to add antibiotics to livestock feed, even when the animals aren't sick. This is because conventional methods typically overcrowd the animals so badly that too many of them will get sick without an on-going diet that includes antibiotics.

It is cruel and inhumane to force animals to live with their own waste and in such crowded conditions. To keep consumers in the dark about the realities of factory farming, many states are passing laws forbidding filming inside these factory farms. The stench of these crowded pens is unbearable to any but the most stalwart and habituated individuals, and the animals' waste is so concentrated that it poses a risk to nearby natural water sources.

These are perfect conditions for pathogens to thrive. It provides bacteria with the opportunity for many different food sources, and many different animal hosts to infect. This gives bacteria an opportunity to develop resistance to our medications. These conditions are also ideal for viruses to spread from animal to animal and potentially to humans.

Dead Zones 

Conventional farming utilizes phosphorous and nitrogen chemical fertilizers. When rain and runoff carry these fertilizers into the ocean, marine life is suffocated. The fertilizers trigger overgrowth of marine plankton. Once the masses of plankton die, their death feeds ocean bacteria. The bacteria consume oxygen, and with an unnatural overabundance of plankton, the bacteria consume just about all of the oxygen left in the ocean. Shrimp, fish, and all other forms of marine life either leave the area or die from lack of oxygen. The end result is hypoxia, oceanic dead zones. These areas are devoid of nearly all life other than plankton and bacteria.

Scientists have documented coastal dead zones, areas that are hypoxic in over 400 coastal areas. All over the world, these dead zones are found downstream of conventional farming from Chesapeake Bay to Oregon to Denmark, and to the Black Sea.

We have a vested interest in marine life. It is not only shameful that marine animals suffocate as a side effect of our farming pollution, it is also economically damaging. The ocean provides us with billions of dollars worth of food annually. Nothing of commercial importance survives a dead zone, fish, shellfish, and shrimp all either leave the area or suffocate in the dead waters. Many of these dead zones are thousands of square miles. The dead zone off of the Gulf of Mexico was once recorded as being an area larger than the state of New Jersey, 22,000 kilometers.

Conclusion 

Pesticide residue, antibiotics, preservatives, and genetic modification directly affect the long-term sustainability of farming, fishing, the consumer's health, and the health of those who grow and produce the food. We do not exist separately from the environment in which we live. If what we consume is polluted, our bodies become polluted. Beyond choosing what we buy in the store, we as a nation must choose, for the long term or short term, organic or conventional. This choice affects us all, even those not yet born.

If you are in a position to grow your own food, check out How To Start A Vegetable Garden and Ten Great Gardening Tips. If you're not growing your own food in very healthy soil, it's time to get more nutrition: Make Your Own Homemade Multivitamin and Mineral Formula.

Sources:

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com

Superfoods RX by Stephen Pratt M.D.

Toxic Relief by Don Colbert M.D.

Environment The Science Behind The Stories 4th edition by Jay Withgott and Scott Brennan

Pesticides on Food - Pesticide Action Network

Chlorpyrifos - National Pesticide Information Center

CIA World Factbook

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com

http://truthwiki.org/Genetically_modified_crops

http://truthwiki.org/GMO_Dangers,_opinion

About the author:
Joel learned long ago that pharmaceuticals were not the answer to health and vitality. He gave up on Pharmaceuticals many years ago, and he also gave up wheat and refined sugars. His hobbies include gluten free baking, gardening, and fitness. Joel is passionate about agriculture and environmental issues. Joel believes that progressive, cutting-edge, organic agriculture can feed the world.

Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Box official launch video

Health Ranger | Feb 24, 2015 | Mike Adams

The Health Ranger launches the Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Box system in this revolutionary unveiling.


Learn more at www.FoodRising.org

New Study Reveals the Many Benefits of Urban Rooftop Gardens

Natural Blaze | Feb 17, 2015 | Robin Powell

In summary:

- Growing vegetables and herbs on the roof of a private or commercial building offers many advantages, including reducing stormwater run-off and helping to cool the building.

- A report prepared by a UTS academic for City of Sydney council sets out best-practice guidelines for food production on rooftops.

What if the greens you need for tonight's dinner were grown on the roof of the office where you work? From a cook's perspective this is a dream – fresh produce and no time wasted on shopping. And the advantages of urban farming extend way beyond the wellbeing of the time-poor consumer. Produce farmed on urban rooftops also contributes to reducing the heat island effect of cities, lowering summer temperatures and minimising the carbon footprint of food.

Rooftop vegetable gardens increase urban biodiversity; decrease stormwater run-off; offer psychological benefits to those involved with the garden and with fellow gardeners; and can even protect and extend the lifetime of the roof.

Interest in green roofs is growing like dandelions in spring: the City of Sydney reports an average of one development application a week for a green roof or wall. Already, 100,000 square metres is given over to green roofs across the city, and  Lord Mayor Clover Moore says the City is doing all it can "to introduce more of these features into our urban landscape".

Yet few are food producing. Sydney's environmental conditions suggest an urban harvest could contribute significantly to food production. The city of Toronto, for instance, which is under snow for three or four months of the year, estimates that 10 per cent of its fresh food could be grown within the city limits.

Research by Dr Sara Wilkinson, Associate Professor in the School of the Built Environment at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), aims to fill the evidence gap on urban farming in Sydney. Her study, funded by the City of Sydney, addresses the barriers and provides evidence for best practice in rooftop food production.

The final report was delivered to council late last year. User-friendly guides developed from Dr Wilkinson's findings are being drafted for the council website.

Dr Wilkinson stresses that the goal of urban farming is not self-sufficiency but to contribute to food production and derive the other benefits of green roofs.

"On food security, food miles, social and psychological concerns, environmental action, it ticks so many boxes to grow food locally," she says.

The first step in her study was to identify appropriate sites for the test gardens. "Factors like access, water and power have to be considered," she says, "and then there is the attitude of building managers."

Her expertise is in building adaptation rather than horticulture so she has the background to understand building management concerns. To alleviate these she is developing a template for a rooftop farming licence agreement that will set out the terms, roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in rooftop food production.

The UTS study compared three types of gardens on the roof of three campus buildings. Vegetables and herbs were grown in a raised bed, a vertical garden and a wicking bed.

(A wicking bed waters plants from below through a capillary action that draws water from a reservoir in the base of the container. The soil is separated from the water by a layer of geotextile fabric, and the plant roots take up moisture as needed. The reservoir means that watering – the most labour-intensive aspect of container-gardening – is reduced from every second day to about once a week.)

Of the three types, the wicking bed proved the most efficient. It was the cheapest to establish ($412 plus labour), required the least water, produced the largest harvests, was easiest to transport, assemble and to garden.

The beds were planted with eggplant, zucchini, basil, carrots, beetroot, lettuce, chilli, capsicum, silver beet, celery, rocket, mizuna and marigolds. Soil toxicologists studied the produce before it was harvested for consumption, to allay concerns about pollution from the busy Broadway traffic several floors down or from other sources such as water or soil.

Initially, traces of lead were found, but after one crop, as the garden established itself, naturally occurring micro-organisms in the soil absorbed the lead in a process known as bio-remediation. Subsequent tests showed the produce was clear of contaminants.

Of the produce grown the silver beet gave the best results for the least time and effort.

The next stage of Dr Wilkinson's research is to apply the findings in the corporate and commercial sector. She is in discussions to introduce food production to the rooftops of commercial buildings in Sydney's central business district. Though it's not here yet, the future may offer salad and sides from the rooftop of your workplace or apartment block.

Findings from Dr Wilkinson's research will be part of a book, Building Resilience in Urban Settlements: Green Roof Retrofit, to be published by Wiley Blackwell next year.

Source: University of Technology, Sydney

Why Are Grasslands Important to Your Health and the Environment?

Mercola | Feb 18, 2015

http://www.mercola.com/infographics/g... Watch this special video by Mercola.com and discover important grassland facts and the reason why their devastation must be stopped.

A Warning About Cinder Block or Concrete Masonry Gardens

© Prevent Disease

Prevent Disease | Feb 6, 2015 | John Summerly

Cinder block gardens have recently become very popular, however a risk of heavy metal poisons from Fly Ash within the concrete may pose a serious threat to the health of an organic garden, leeching toxins into the soil and the plants themselves.

Cinder blocks to build raised beds and also to plant directly inside the cells of this block are being promoted on Youtube videos and gardening sites. However, there is a strong possibility of poisons in the construction of these products that should deter anyone from using them to grow food.

The product Fly Ash is used as a Portland Cement replacement for up to 30% of the cement used to manufacture these products. For those of you unaware, Fly Ash is generally captured by electrostatic precipitators or other particle filtration equipment before the flue gases reach the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, and together with bottom ash removed from the bottom of the furnace is in this case jointly known as coal ash.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has little power to restrict any chemical, but they've been investigating whether or not to label Fly Ash as a Hazardous Waste due to the high levels of heavy metals including arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium and selenium, as well as aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, boron, chlorine, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, vanadium, and zinc, leaving some "Industry Folk" to refer to concrete as the "New Asbestos" or the "New Lead Paint".

If eaten, drunk or inhaled, these toxicants can cause cancer and nervous system impacts such as cognitive deficits, developmental delays and behavioral problems. They can also cause heart damage, lung disease, respiratory distress, kidney disease, reproductive problems, gastrointestinal illness, birth defects, and impaired bone growth in children.

The EPA has found that living next to a coal ash disposal site can increase your risk of cancer or other diseases. If you live near an unlined wet ash pond (surface impoundment) and you get your drinking water from a well, you may have as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from drinking arsenic-contaminated water. Arsenic is one of the most common, and most dangerous, pollutants from coal ash. The EPA also found that living near ash ponds increases the risk of damage from cadmium, lead, and other toxic metals.

Despite the EPA knowing fully well that this product is unhealthy, after five and a half years of proposals, reworking and review of 450,000-plus comments, the EPA issued a final ruling fly ash could be safely processed and recycled. The ruling shocked many, especially since the use had trended negatively against historical patterns since the agency initiated management and disposal rulemaking in June 2009.

The process of creating cement locks these poisons into the blocks, but it is assumed that the blocks will be sealed and waterproofed, but even that process is toxic. These poisons will leech these materials into the soil and any plants in proximity. They should only be used for areas containing ornamental plantings only, and never for food crops.

Sources:
psr.org
concreteproducts.com
survivalblog.com

John Summerly is nutritionist, herbologist, and homeopathic practitioner. He is a leader in the natural health community and consults athletes, executives and most of all parents of children on the benefits of complementary therapies for health and prevention.

How to survive when the dollar collapses

© Natural News

Natural News | Jan 30, 2015 | Daniel Barker

The current administration would like for you to believe that the economy is on the mend and that we can look forward to growth in 2015. But most economists and basically anyone with a grain of sense will tell you otherwise.

The drop in oil prices may seem like a good thing when it's time to gas up the SUV, but the free fall in oil prices is actually very bad news in the long run. And when you take a look at how the Federal Reserve has been artificially stimulating the economy with quantitative easing and the continued printing of ever-more-worthless dollars, it's not difficult to see that there is a huge economic bubble being created, and it will burst sooner or later. My guess is sooner, but maybe I'm just a pessimist -- time will tell...

Many are predicting that 2015 will be the year the dollar collapses, and few of us are truly ready to face what some are forecasting will be a financial "bloodbath" or "Armageddon." Despite the Obama Administration and the Fed's attempts to paint lipstick on a pig by cooking the books, the fact remains that more than 100 million Americans are unemployed -- the highest percentage since the Great Depression.

And with oil prices expected to drop even further, more Americans can expect to lose their jobs -- if they are lucky enough to have one in the first place.

And let's not forget the effects of Obamacare, which is driving employers to cut hours for their workers so that they can avoid having to meet the ACA requirements.

In short, we are headed for an economic collapse that will make the 2008 crisis pale in comparison.

So, how to survive the coming crash?

Daisy Luther, creator of the website offers some useful advice on how to cut costs and prepare as much as possible for the inevitable collapse of the dollar.

As Luther notes: "The key to economic survival is requiring less of things that cost money." She urges readers to realize the difference between essentials and luxuries, and get rid of the things that aren't necessary to survival. Her list of essentials includes:

• Water
• Food (and the ability to cook it)
• Medicine and medical supplies
• Basic hygiene supplies
• Shelter (including sanitation, lights, heat)
• Simple tools
• Seeds
• Defense items

Beyond these basics, all else are luxuries. Luther recommends looking for ways to cut monthly costs. Among her suggestions: moving to a smaller home, relocating to a smaller town, getting rid of monthly car payments by buying a cheaper used vehicle with cash, stop using credit cards, eat at home instead of dining out, and generally becoming as frugal and self-reliant as possible.

The more you can provide for yourself, the better off you will be. Do whatever you can to reduce your reliance on the power grid -- harnessing solar energy and limiting the use of electricity to powering actual necessities is a good start.

The more food you can grow or produce, the more money you'll save and the healthier you'll be -- not to mention the fact that you'll be more self-reliant when the SHTF.

It is essential to establish a mindset that will get you through any crisis. The core philosophy of prepping is to be ready before things go sideways. Luther also urges everyone to build a "preparedness library." If the power grid goes down, you'll need books to help you develop and maintain survival strategies -- websites are of no use if you can't get online.

Even if the economy turns around (which is highly doubtful at this point), it makes sense to be prepared for the worst. Don't wait until the proverbial wolves are at the door -- make plans now for facing what could prove to be a very challenging situation when the current economic bubble finally bursts.

Source:

http://www.theorganicprepper.ca

Cuba’s Harvest of Surprises

Cornucopia | Jan 22, 2015 | Christopher D. Cook

Source: Thomas Münter

"Flanked by a lush, dark-green eruption of chard and fava beans at a tiny eighth-of-an-acre garden plot in Berkeley, Altieri scribbles numbers on a notepad, producing some compelling calculations: Applying agroecology methods on 1200 acres of public lands, the city of Oakland could produce 25,000 tons of food annually—enough to feed at least 400,000 people—without any pesticides or genetically engineered “super plants.” Such a change would be huge, Altieri argues, since the Bay Area imports 6,000 tons of food each day, which lean heavily on fossil fuel. But for a host of reasons, it’s not likely, he says."

In the fall of 1989, a full quarter-century before President Obama normalized US relations with Cuba, the Berlin Wall came tumbling to the ground in a flurry of sledgehammers and concrete dust. Meanwhile, an economic tsunami was brewing on the small Caribbean island. The Soviet Bloc was crumbling fast, sending shock waves across the globe that would plunge Cuba’s food and farming into years of austerity, hunger, and radical overhaul.

Earlier that year, the international socialist market terminated Cuba’s favorable trade rates—abruptly curtailing 85 percent of the tiny nation’s trade. Imports of wheat and other grains dropped by more than half; food rationing set in, and hunger widened. Soviet aid, a pillar of Cuba’s economy, evaporated as U.S. economic sanctions tightened.

Economic collapse led swiftly to agricultural crisis. Cuba’s industrialized farming system, fueled, literally, by Soviet tractors and petrochemicals, ground to a halt. Oil imports fell by 53 percent, and the supply of pesticides and fertilizers fell by 80 percent. Launching an era of austerity and reform known as the “Special Period in Time of Peace,” the Castro government “instituted drastic measures such as planned blackouts, the use of bicycles for mass transportation, and the use of animals in the place of tractors” to meet the unfolding crisis, according to a report by Food First, a U.S.-based think tank focused on food justice issues.

Read more..

Organic farming can feed the world if done right, scientists claim

image

The Independent | Dec 10, 2014 | Tom Bawden

Organic farming is much more productive than previously thought, according to a new analysis of agricultural studies that challenges the conventional “biased” view that pesticide-free agriculture cannot feed the world.


The study says that organic yields were only 19.2 per cent lower, on average, than those from conventional crops and that this gap could be reduced to just eight per cent if the pesticide-free crops were rotated more frequently.

Furthermore, in some crops - especially leguminous plants such as beans, peas and lentils - there were no significant differences in yields, the researchers from the University of California, Berkeley found.

“In terms of comparing productivity among the two techniques, this paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said Claire Kremen, professor of environmental science, policy and management at Berkeley.

The study comes amid rising concerns that intense farming practices are damaging the environment, with the widespread use of nerve agent pesticides frequently blamed for declining populations of bees and other pollinators. Meanwhile, fertilisers are producing smaller and smaller increases in yields because they are now so effective they are difficult to improve upon.

“With global food needs predicted to greatly increase in the next 50 years, it’s critical to look more closely at organic farming because, aside from the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, the ability of synthetic fertilizers to increase crop yields has been declining,” said Prof Kremen.

The researchers based their findings on a meta-analysis of 115 studies – a dataset three times greater than any previous such paper – comparing organic and conventional agriculture.

In addition to finding a smaller – 19.2 per cent – productivity difference between the two than previously calculated, the researchers also found that optimising organic productivity through different techniques could further reduce the gap.

Multi-cropping, or growing several crops together on the same field, would cut the yield difference to nine per cent, with crop rotation reducing the gap to eight per cent.

The study, published in the journal Royal Society B, suggested that the gaps could be even smaller than they have calculated because existing studies were “often biased in favour of conventional agriculture”.

“Our study suggests that through appropriate investment in agroecological research to improve organic management and in breeding cultivars for organic farming systems, the yield gap could be reduced or even eliminated for some crops or regions,” said the study’s lead author, Lauren Ponisio, a graduate student in environmental science, policy and management.

The researchers suggest that organic farming can be a very competitive alternative to industrial agriculture when it comes to food production.

“It’s important to remember that our current agricultural system produces far more food than is needed to provide for everyone on the planet,” said Prof Kremen.

“Eradicating world hunger requires increasing the access to food, not simply the production. Also, increasing the proportion of agriculture that uses sustainable, organic methods of farming is not a choice, it’s a necessity. We simply can’t continue to produce food far into the future without taking care of our soils, water and biodiversity,” she added.

How a Low-Tech Seed Bank in Greece Preserves Thousands of Heritage Crops

Photo by Prensa 420 / Flickr.

Yes Magazine | Dec 29, 2014 | Jeffrey Andreoni

Members of the Greek seed bank Peliti say that keeping their wares in production—instead of in refrigerators—improves the health of the plants they’re working to save. 

Ethical consumers in the United States are increasingly concerned with the seeds used in the production of their food. However, this has been an issue in Europe for many years. In fact, there are several transnational seed-saver networks, like Arche Noah, whose members have become experts on heritage seeds.
 

One of the most famous groups within Arche Noah’s 8,000-member network is the “live” seed bank Peliti, which has been raising awareness about endangered varieties of heritage seeds since 1995. Once tiny, now Peliti is an NGO that receives thousands of visitors for its annual seed swap where you can get a mind-boggling number of seed varieties for free. It’s the biggest event of its kind in the world with an estimated 5,000 visitors from about 50 different countries in 2013. Recently I had the opportunity to interview one of the 200 Peliti volunteers, who are spread throughout Greece and beyond.

They call themselves a “live seed bank” because traditional seed banks store seeds under refrigeration, sometimes for up 15 years, which is “more like a seed museum than a seed bank,” according to volunteer Vasso Kanellopoulou. Peliti concentrates on keeping their seeds reproducing and germinating so they don’t fall victim to genetic erosion. Originally they started out with only a few hundred varieties, now they have thousands they’re saving from extinction.

Autonomous seed networks

Peliti isn’t just a community. It is yet another node within the larger global seed-saver network. They are now morphing into a decentralized network themselves. Their organization has given birth to many satellite communities that are linked with one another via a Google Group.

These satellite communities, one of which is in Athens, organize local seed swaps for those unable to travel to Peliti. The local seed swaps emerged from a growing interest by urban farmers in Greece who wanted more heritage seeds after the financial crisis. Peliti is encouraging growth of urban agriculture throughout their network.

Their organization goes even further, with a consortium of seed savers being represented in the European Union by a team of lawyers. They’ve also helped stop a law against heritage seeds in the E.U. parliament. Ironically, it was the Greek government that proposed the legislation that had seed savers all over Europe worried. Thankfully the E.U. parliament has rewritten the legislation after hearing the complaints.

Recently, Peliti launched International Seed Days, a series of meetings attended by delegations from more than 18 countries. The meetings are closed to the public and take place two days before the seed swap. The renowned activist Vandana Shiva spoke at International Seed Days last year.

Panagiotis Sainatoudis, Peliti’s founder, says that one of the organization’s basic principles is “to support man’s freedom to keep his own seed so he won’t depend every year on seed purchase, commerce, not even on the seeds supplied by Peliti.” When you get connected to the Peliti network, you automatically gain some autonomy.

Here's a personal example: In 2011 I was cycling through Greece and discovered a Peliti participant, Vasilios, on his farm outside Thessaloniki. Vasilios and I remained in contact so when I got back to London he mailed me some seeds for varieties of lettuce and Swiss chard that grow well in cold climates. I planted the seeds and, as the rule goes, I let a certain amount go to seed after the harvest.

Now every year I have Peliti seeds to plant; I just have to be careful to instruct my housemates not to “weed the seeds,” which happened one year when a journalist roommate who fancied himself a gardener threw away all my Peliti seeds! Good thing I had a reserve. You never know where your Peliti seeds will wind up; I share extras when I have them.

There is a state organization in Greece dedicated to preserving the biodiversity of Greece. However, its future remains uncertain because of the financial crisis. It is said that the National Seed Bank has around 15,000 varieties (a small percentage of the total genetic heritage of Greece). However, 5,000 of these have been lost due to funding cuts. Losing money is one thing, but losing species is dangerous!

Perhaps Greece’s most important national bank could be its agricultural gene bank. After Spain, Greece is the country with the richest biodiversity in Europe, and Peliti aims to keep it that way as their seed collection will soon surpass that of the National Seed Bank. It’s a case of community stewardship supplanting the duties of the state.

Jeffrey Andreoni wrote this article for Shareable, where it originally appeared. Jeffrey is a writer who divides his time between London and Athens. His writing covers subjects from fine art to adventure travel. In addition he organizes flash mobs and social interventions in a variety of locations. Originally from Rhode Island, Jeffrey moved to Italy in 1998 and hasn’t stopped moving since; hence his nickname, Bezdomny.

Monsanto implicated in “fraud and abuse of patent law”

© Farm Wars

Farm Wars | Dec 22, 2014

After opposition: Monsanto patent on tomatoes revoked

Monsanto implicated in “fraud and abuse of patent law”

Christoph Then

No Patents on Seeds

22 December 2014 / Munich. Patent EP1812575 held by the US company Monsanto has been revoked by the European Patent Office (EPO) after the international coalition No Patents on Seeds! filed an opposition in May 2014. A further opposition was filed by Nunhems / Bayer CropScience. In November 2014, Monsanto requested that the patent be revoked in its entirety and the EPO complied with this request. The patent covered conventionally bred tomatoes with a natural resistance to a fungal disease called botrytis, which were claimed as an invention. The original tomatoes used for this patent were accessed via the international gene bank in Gatersleben, Germany, and it was already known that these plants had the desired resistance. Monsanto produced a cleverly worded patent in order to create the impression that genetic engineering had been used to produce the tomatoes and to make it look ‘inventive’.


“Revoking this patent is an important success. It was more or less based on a combination of fraud, abuse of patent law and biopiracy. The patent could have been used to monopolise important genetic resources. Now breeders, growers and consumers have a chance of benefiting from a greater diversity of tomatoes improved by further breeding”, says Christoph Then, a coordinator of No Patents on Seeds!. “The intended resistance is based on complex genetic conditions, which are not known in detail. So genetic engineering is clearly not an option in this case.”

The EPO has already granted more than a hundred patents on the conventional breeding of plants even though “essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals” and “plant varieties” are excluded from patentability. Altogether, the EPO has granted around 2400 patents on genetically engineered plants many of them owned by Monsanto, which already controls around 25 percent of the international seed market. The coalition of No Patents on Seeds! has filed further oppositions against patents held by the US company covering broccoli which can be harvested mechanically (EP 1597965), melons that are resistant to plant viruses (EP1962578) and a selection of plants for breeding soybeans (EP 2134870) adapted to climate change.

As a recently published “No Patents on Seeds!” report shows, the EPO is granting more and more patents in this field and intentionally undermining existing prohibitions. The coalition is calling on the European governments to take the EPO under political control to ensure a correct interpretation of patent law and enforce prohibitions effectively. No Patents on Seeds! is also calling for a revision of European Patent Law to exclude breeding material, plants and animals and food derived thereof from patentability.

The organisations behind the coalition of No Patents on Seeds! are concerned that patents on plant and animal breeding will foster further market concentration, making farmers and other stakeholders of the food supply chain even more dependent on just a few big international companies and ultimately reduce consumer choice. The coalition of No Patents on Seeds! is organised by Bionext (Netherlands), The Berne Declaration (Switzerland), GeneWatch (UK), Greenpeace, Misereor (Germany), Development Fund (Norway), No Patents on Life (Germany), Red de Semillas (Spain), Rete Semi Rurali (Italy), Reseau Semences Paysannes (France) and Swissaid (Switzerland). They are calling for a revision of European Patent Law to exclude breeding material, plants and animals and food derived thereof from patentability. The coalition is supported by several hundred other organisations.

Contact:

Christoph Then, phone: 0049 15154638040 , info@no-patents-on-seeds.org

No Patents on Seeds report

Text of the opposition and the patent

Five reasons why you're totally crazy if you aren't growing your own food

© Natural News

Natural News | Dec 15, 2014 | Mike Adams

As things get ever crazier in the world, there are more reasons than ever to grow at least some of your own food. In fact, I say you're crazy if you don't grow some food!

Here are five huge reasons why...

#1) With food prices skyrocketing, you'll save money by growing your own 

Have you priced organic romaine lettuce recently? Or beautiful red peppers? With food prices continuing to skyrocket, the economics of growing your own food make more sense than ever before.

Growing food costs almost nothing in terms of actual dollars -- it's the labor input that represents the greatest input cost. But with container gardening, square foot gardening, simple hydroponics systems and even countertop sprouting, growing your own food doesn't have to be a labor-intensive activity. You don't even need dirt or a yard to do simple things like grow window sill herbs or countertop sprouts (alfalfa, mung bean, chickpeas, clover, broccoli, etc.).

Ever better, the much higher nutritional value of home-grown food (compared to processed factory foods you buy at the grocery store) actually saves you money on long-term health care costs. By eating your way to good health, you are eliminating your future need to buy expensive prescription medications and undergo costly doctor visits (or hospital procedures).

It's true: Growing your own food saves you money both today and tomorrow.

#2) The end of cheap water is making food more scarce and difficult to produce 

The end of cheap, easy water is upon us. Thanks to extreme weather events and runaway drought conditions in food-producing states like California, underground water aquifers are being rapidly pumped dry.

The end game of all this isn't difficult to see: Today's food-producing hubs will become tomorrow's Dust Bowl regions. Without cheap water, there is no cheap food. And as water becomes increasingly scarce, food will become increasingly expensive, vastly outpacing price inflation rate for other product categories.

In addition to water scarcity, modern mechanized monoculture (chemical agriculture) also destroys soils, rivers, trees and healthful microbes. There is no long-term sustainability of modern agricultural practices, which are focused on "poison and pillage for profit" rather than growing nutritious food to nurture a civilization toward a better future.

The era of scarce, expensive food has already begun. You're witnessing its beginnings right now, and as the march of human agricultural destruction accelerates, real food is only going to become harder and harder to acquire.

#3) Home-grown food is far more nutritious and medicinal 

Stated plainly, nearly all the food you buy at the grocery store is little more than a mere shadow of real food. Processed, packaged food provides empty calories and little else. Dairy products are almost universally homogenized and pasteurized, and even the fresh produce that claims to be "ripened on the vine" was actually cut from the plant -- with the vine still attached -- weeks before it reached its peak nutritional potency.

Even more, the soils in which these foods are grown are nutritionally depleted and utterly lacking any real quantities of trace minerals. When you buy food or produce at the grocery store, you're mostly buying the illusion of food -- which is also why you're always hungry for more of it. It's never satisfying because it doesn't provide the real nutrition your body craves.

When you grow your own food in nutrient-rich soils, you are producing the world's healthiest foods and medicines right at home. Every edible plant in the world naturally synthesizes its own medicines to keep itself alive (and free from infections). These medicines are at their peak when you harvest vegetables, fruits and herbs after they achieve full readiness... and that's something grocery stores can never do because they have to pick everything prematurely to account for transportation and distribution time.

In terms of minerals, phytonutrients and natural medicines, home-grown food is the world's best source for nutrients. That's why home-grown fruits and veggies also taste better -- your tongue is telling you the truth about real food!

#4) Growing your own food strengthens your self-reliance and preparedness 

You probably already know our world is headed for some extraordinary challenges ahead. Political strife, social chaos, weather radicalization and even prospects of war are all very real risks throughout the world. When regions are destabilized, food supplies are almost immediately wiped out or seriously disrupted.

Having the ability to grow your own food provides protection from the unexpected. While riots or war can wreak havoc on supplies of traditional grocery store foods, they usually have no negative effect at all on home gardens and a home food supply. Even better, if you've practiced the skills of growing food, harvesting food, saving seeds and nurturing healthy soils, those skills are immediately applicable no matter what scenario comes your way.

Ask yourself this question: If the food trucks stop delivering to the grocery stores, would you rather find yourself standing in a government food line, or popping open a jar of home-canned salsa that you grew yourself? Care to guess which food is healthier?

#5) When you can produce your own food, you can't be easily controlled by others 

The real danger of being entirely dependent on government for emergency food supplies is that you will simultaneously have to obey the government's unreasonable demands. Depending on the circumstances, those demands might include giving up your tools of self defense, surrendering your personal property or even abandoning your own home and being relocated to a refugee camp of some sort.

Throughout world history, food has often been used as a weapon against the People. Even today, every dictator knows that the easiest way to control the people is to first control the food. (Just ask anyone who hasn't yet starved to death in North Korea...)

In the days of ancient Rome, raiding forces are rumored to sometimes punish a conquered land by plowing the soils with salt, destroying the ability of that land to produce food. [1] This would make the conquered region beholden to the victor for food. Remember: He who controls the food controls the people.

The U.S. government increasingly criminalizes home food production Growing your own food is one of the greatest expressions of freedom and liberty. This is precisely why governments across the United States frequently seek to criminalize those who engage in home gardening, small-scale farming or raw milk production.

Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan, for example, was threatened with jail time for growing vegetables in her front yard. Read about my interview with Julie Bass at this Natural News article.

Similarly, in 2012 the government of Tulsa, Oklahoma, deliberately destroyed the herb garden of a woman named Denise Morrison. Their goal? To make sure private citizens cannot independently produce their own food and natural medicine.

Government officials in both the USA and Canada have also frequently conducted armed raids on indoor vegetable grow operations, destroying indoor cucumber farms and terrorizing innocent families. As Natural News previously reported:

...the Harte family of Leawood, Kansas, was literally held hostage at gunpoint by law enforcement goons who ravaged their house and tore apart hydroponic growing equipment that they falsely believed to be part of a nonexistent marijuana grow operation in the family's basement.

Just this year, another SWAT-style police raid on a home garden was conducted in Georgia, where law enforcement officers are apparently too stupid to know the difference between okra and marijuana. In a televised interview, Georgia State Patrol Capt. Kermit Stoke literally said on camera: "We've not been able to identify it as of yet. But it did have quite a number of characteristics that were similar to a cannabis plant." (Seriously? People who live in Georgia don't know what okra looks like?)

One of the red flags of knowing you're living in a police state tyranny, in fact, is when government criminalizes home gardens and conducts armed raids on vegetable growers. That day has already arrived in America, where being arrested as a "criminal" only requires that you attempt to grow your own nutritious garden vegetables. And that's all the more reason to grow them anyway... in defiance of the government insanity that seeks to jail home gardeners and force everyone to eat processed factory foods that promote disease and cognitive decline.

Learn how to grow your own food with these resources 

Geoff Lawton teaches permaculture
www.GeoffLawton.com

Marjory Wildcraft shows you how to "Grow Your Own Groceries"
www.MarjoryWildcraft.com

The Square Foot Gardening Foundation:
www.squarefootgardening.org

Sources for this article include:
[1] http://www.dl.ket.org/latin2/historia/republ...

[2] http://www.naturalnews.com/047360_marijuana_...

[3] http://www.naturalnews.com/044529_armed_raid...

[4] http://www.naturalnews.com/036234_edible_lan...

With Help From USDA, Factory Farms 'Masquerading' Products as Organic

This flyover shot taken during Cornucopia Institute's investigation
shows Herbruck’s farm in Saranac, Michigan, which holds 85,000
hens per building and none outdoors. (Photo: Cornucopia Institute)

Common Dreams | Dec 11, 2014 | Nadia Prupis

Cornucopia Institute sues 14 industrial farms over alleged fraud, mistreatment of animals

More than a dozen factory farms producing dairy and meat products for stores nationwide engaged in widespread organic fraud for years as the USDA stood idly by, an agriculture industry watchdog said on Thursday.

A months-long investigation by the Cornucopia Institute discovered that 14 farms around the country producing so-called organic products have been defying USDA regulations, keeping animals tightly packed in facilities with no real access to the outdoors, while federal management routinely ignored pressure to investigate conditions.

The institute filed suit against those farms on Thursday and called on the USDA to remove the industry management body, the National Organic Program.

Organic fraud is "unconscionable," said Mark A. Kastel, Cornucopia senior farm policy analyst. "The job of the USDA is to oversee the certifiers and ensure that they are doing their job. It is quite possible that, in this case, there could have been a conspiracy and/or negligence that the certifier was responsible for."

After what the Cornucopia Institute called "years of inaction" by the USDA, the watchdog group conducted an independent investigation into the conditions of a number of farms currently creating products for labels that market themselves as humane, environmentally conscious, and economically fair.

None of them passed muster.

Current organic rules dictate that animals designated as organic must have their "health and natural behavior" accommodated, allowing cows to graze and chickens to roam. Among the farms named in Cornucopia Institute's lawsuit is Horizon Dairy, a grocery store staple that depicts a happy, animated cow as its logo; but aerial photographs taken during Cornucopia's investigation show that Horizon farms, as well as the "vast majority" of large-scale farms that label themselves organic, "had 100% of their animals confined in giant buildings or feedlots," conditions which violate federal standards for organic farms, the institute says.

Other well-known brands whose dairies failed to measure up in Cornucopia's investigation were Herbruck's and Organic Valley.

"The federal organic regulations make it very clear that all organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and that ruminants, like dairy cows, must have access to pasture," Kastel said.

With the organic industry expanding in response to increased desire for more natural products and humane treatment of animals, consumers are likely to feel deceived to learn of the real conditions on those farms, Kastel added. "Shoppers, who passionately support the ideals and values represented by the organic label, understandably feel betrayed when they see photos of these massive CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) masquerading as organic."

This is not the first time that Horizon, or other brands named in the suit, have been in trouble for skirting regulations. Some of its largest dairy providers are still being investigated by the USDA for "improprieties."

But federal oversight is still inadequate, often taking years to respond to complaints and review appeals from dairies that continue operating illegally in the interim, Cornucopia says—actions which diminish profits for legitimate farms nearby.

"The inaction by the USDA places thousands of ethical family-scale farmers, who are competing with a couple of dozen giant dairies, at a competitive disadvantage,” said Kevin Engelbert, an organic dairy farmer and former member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a citizen advisory panel. "Allowing these illegal dairies to continue to operate is a travesty and significantly undercuts the supply-demand dynamic that should be rewarding farmers in the marketplace and providing a decent living for our families."

The criticism against the USDA does not stop at inaction against illegal operators. The agency also restricted the oversight responsibilities of the NOSB and weakened rules for the use of synthetic ingredients in organic food production, Cornucopia says.

Many of those farms are denying that any impropriety exists. "A single photo doesn’t really tell us anything about a farm and its practices," Sonja Tuitele, a spokesperson for Aurora Organic Dairy, told the Washington Post. "Our records do indicate that all of our lactating cows at the Coldwater facility were grazing on pastures on May 17^th. Since we don’t know what time of day this photo was taken, we can only assume this photo was taken outside of their daily grazing hours."

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides and member of the NOSB, called the current situation "untenable."

He added, "Someone needs to take responsibility for the divide in this industry which has begun seriously undercutting the credibility of the organic label and the livelihoods of ethical organic farmers."

Humanure compost toilet: A better way to go

Veterans Today | Nov 12, 2014 | Dr. Kevin Barrett

A review of The Humanure Handbook: A Guide to Composting Human Manure by Joe Jenkins 

with a “Fatwa on the Flush Toilet” by Shaykh Imran Hosein

[Buy the book or read a free online version here]

When Obama recently called Netanyahu “chickenshit” most folks understood an insult was intended. But in some cultures, where nitrogen-rich poultry poop makes great fertilizer, somebody may have thought the president was depicting Bibi as a precious ally and a source of growth and nourishment.

Believe it or not, the same misunderstanding is possible when the insult concerns human excrement. Thirty years ago, if you told a Chinese peasant he was full of shit, he might have replied:

“Sank you. Velly nice compriment. Shit velly variable RE-source.”

If you think that was meant as an ethnic joke at the expense of the Chinese peasant, the joke’s on you. Unlike you, the Chinese peasant’s smart enough not to defecate into drinking water.

Today, more and more Chinese people – 64% at last count – are gaining access to “improved” sanitation. Though polluting five gallons of purified drinking water with every flush may be an improvement over spreading raw human excrement a.k.a. “night soil” directly on the fields – though even that is disputable – there is definitely a better way to go. If you really want to improve your sanitation, don’t pony up billions of dollars for porcelain thrones, pipes, septic tanks and sewage treatment facilities. Instead, spend $25 per household building a compost collection toilet. You can find the plans in Joe Jenkins’ Humanure Handbook.

Read more..

Discovery Channel documentary Moringa - The Miracle Tree

Zija Australia | Oct 20, 2011

Moringa has an impressive range of medicinal uses with high nutritional value. Different parts of this plant contain a profile of important minerals, and are a good source of protein, vitamins, beta-carotene, amino acids and various phenolics. The Moringa plant provides a rich and rare combination of zeatin, quercetin, beta-sitosterol, caffeoylquinic acid and kaempferol.

Scientists Prove Organic Food More Nutritionally Rich than Conventional, GMO Crops

© Natural Society

Natural Society | Oct 24, 2014 | Christina Sarich

It’s always interesting when biotech shills spout a bunch of their credentials on posts about GMOs, complaining that there is no scientific proof that genetically modified organisms are bad for our health, bad for the environment, or bad for food sustainability. But here’s something positive. In researching the true nutrition of food that is grown organically (without pesticides and herbicides, as GMOs are), one scientist that is well respected in her field found some revealing evidence showing how non-GMO, organic foods are better for us. Read on to learn more.

Many GMO-advocates are probably aware of the fact that genetically modified crops contain higher levels of pesticide residues than conventional crops. But what about organic vs. GMO when it comes to nutrient content? You can argue with a biotech scientist all day long, and they’ll tell you there is no difference, but they are flat wrong. It’s no straw man – there is real evidence that organic produce is better – in a number of ways.

Read more..

Small Farmers of the World Being Crushed by Lavish Subsidies in Wealthy Nations

Calling for changes to how the international food and commodity
markets are managed, attendees at the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) meeting on the topic said that the
hundreds of billions spent annually by the United States,
Canada, and other rich nations create skewed markets
conditions that benefit those who need it least while
squeezing the world's poorest and most vulnerable.
(Photo: Oxfam International)

Common Dreams | Oct 7, 2014 | Jon Queally

Subsidies of major crops 'creates unfair competition' throughout entire global food system

Lavish subsidies for commodity agriculture products like cotton, corn, and soy beans in the world's wealthiest nations continue to put small-scale farmers and consumers in less-developed nations on the short-end of the stick in the global food economy, said policy experts and top ministers from African nations at a United Nations food summit in Rome on Monday.

Calling for changes to how the international food and commodity markets are managed, attendees at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) meeting on the topic said that the hundreds of billions spent annually by the United States, Canada, and other rich nations create skewed markets conditions that benefit those who need it least while squeezing the world's poorest and most vulnerable.

Director-General of the FAO José Graziano da Silva told those gathered it was time for world governments "to review the way international agricultural commodity markets are governed" and noted the importance of recognizing how global market functions—such as large shifts in the price of staple commodities—can create dramatic upheavals and negative impacts, especially on "the incomes and food security of smallholders."

Critics point to the high levels of government subsidies, with the US being the most obvious culprit when it comes to things like corn and cotton, that result in these wild market swings

According to Chris Arsenault, reporting for the Thomas Reuters Foundation:

The United States, the world's largest cotton producer, paid its cotton farmers $32.9 billion to grow their crops between 1995 and 2012, the Environmental Working Group, a research organization, reported.

"U.S. farmers are subsidized so they produce more cotton than they would otherwise, lowering the global price and hurting farmers in Burkina Faso," Gawain Kripke, Oxfam America's director of research, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. "This creates unfair global competition."

European cotton producers, based mostly in Greece and Spain, receive smaller subsidies, but the EU accounts for only one percent of world production.

For other crops, the European Union spends around $58 billion annually on farm subsidies. Farmers from poorer countries say they cannot compete, given these levels of government support for their rivals.

As quoted by Arsenault, the minister of agriculture for Burkina Faso, Mahama Zoungrana, rose at the meeting and told delegates: "Our cotton producers are constantly targeted by unfair subsidies from the North." He went on to argue that "the rules and standards" that govern international trade are written in favor of large producers but continue to make life unbearable for small and medium sized farmers in Africa and across the world.

A global food "paradigm shift": From industrial monocultures to agroecology

What's often lost in surface discussions surrounding food subsidies is the outsized role played by the industrialized nature of the corporate-controlled food system itself. The commodity crops in developed countries which receive the vast majority of government support are grown at industrial scale, which skews not only the markets on which those commodities are traded but also skews the very soil and water systems that make up the areas where those farms exist.

Last month, da Silva and the FAO made news by calling for an international "paradigm shift" on global agriculture — one that would initiate new focus on sustainable and family farming, including taking guidance from the principles of agroecology the other  food systems that take food sovereignty and organic practices as central tenets. However, to the dismay of small-holder farmers and supporters of organic farming, da Silva also pushed GMO farming as part of the global solution and offered no strong or binding proposals that would see the dominance of monocultures and industrial agriculture end any time soon.

Despite the lack of firm action, Monique Mikhail, a senior political advisor at Greenpeace International, was among the welcoming the new dialogue that has at least found a place at the FAO and other international forums. In a recent blog post, she wrote:

the tide appears to be changing with more and more international heavy-weights recognizing the need for an overhaul of our food system by focusing on ecological farming. At the onset of the symposium, about 70 prominent scientists addressed a letter to the FAO, calling for it to support ecological farming as the central strategy for building resilience to climate change.

Ecological farming is far more resilient to disruption because it is rooted in the idea that an alternative farming system, based on biodiversity, can protect both nature and human livelihoods now and into the future.

And La Via Campesine, the international group of peasant farmers, is on the record as expressing cautious applause for the introduction of agroecology to the UN policy debate:

Governments and institutions, the majority of which respond to the interests of national and transnational agribusiness, have resisted agroecology. In fact, to speak of the alternatives embodied in agroecology, has until now been taboo in institutions like the FAO. Still, this situation has been changing of late, though only partially.

The rapid degradation of soils and other productive resources brought about industrial farming practices, and climate change, have now created growing uncertainty about the future of industrial agriculture. And the number of scientists with studies and data that show agroecology to be a superior approach, in terms of both productivity and sustainability, is growing. The result has been more institutional opening to agroecology.

But the opening is relative.  While social movements like La Via Campesina see agroecology as the alternative to industrial agriculture, and highlight it's potential help in transforming grim rural realities, the new institutional opening is geared more toward a scaled-back version of agroecology.  This version is limited to seeing agroecology as nothing more than the source of a few new tools for the toolbox of industrial agriculture; in other words, of methods to reduce the negative impacts of industrial farming practices on future productivity.  Those who promote this shrunken approach use names like 'sustainable' or 'ecological intensification,' or 'climate smart agriculture,' to refer the erroneous idea that agroecology is compatible with large extensions of industrial monoculture, pesticides and GMOs.  For La Via Campesina, this is not agroecology, but rather is a blatant attempt at cooptation, which should be denounced and resisted.