Current Issue October 2005 Behind the Lines Cover Story Letters Coming Events Short Takes Stories Crops Business Letter From Europe Rural Roots   Contact Us

L E T T E R S Fallacious arguments about sustainable agriculture You'll likely be inundated with organic letters of justifiable outrage concerning Jim Dalrymple's claim that "organic food production is not the answer" ("Myths and realities about sustainable agriculture," Better Farming, June/July, 2005). However, before the organic folks get too focused on his impolite dismissal, they might want to consider that the writer makes an even shakier claim regarding the need for yet more food to "meet growing demand." Past "biotechnological" (in this case genetic) agricultural advances have been fairly benign, e.g., sterile hybrid plants and turkeys that can't reproduce naturally. But as the law of diminished returns closes in on our technologists and it becomes more difficult for them to deliver the next big (profitable) thing, their strategies become more extreme (dangerous) as they manipulate nature and redirect evolution per corporate demands. To the corporate world, this is what "results-based" science is about. Today our concern isn't about biotechnologies that result in organisms that can't reproduce in the wild (it's unlikely that a domestic tom turkey will ever mount a wild hen). It's about organisms that can't be stopped from reproducing in the wild. Our problem is that we need a new model. The old one is completely outdated and useless and the provincial government knows this. That's why its ag expenditure has dropped from 1.5 per cent to 0.5 per cent in the past 15 years. For what possible reason would Ontario want farmers to increase ag output by, say, 50 per cent? The Green Revolution is over. With respect to world food demand, the argument that North America should be the world's breadbasket is another corporate myth. Shipping all kinds of energy-intensive food from Canada to the starving world is the antithesis of sustainable agriculture. (Check the energy output/input ratios on exported food and you'll see what I mean.) Something like 40 per cent of food shipped for starvation relief often never gets to those in need. Spoilage and vermin (especially human vermin in the form of black marketers) often account for much of the "losses." It's time we adapted our technologies to the rest of the world, rather than the other way around. If the technologists are sincere in wanting to address world food shortages, their submission to the gods of corporate profit is NOT the way to go about it. We need corporations and we need agri-technologists. But what we need more than anything is a new agricultural model for both of these entities. Terence Rothwell Mount Forest Shell and 'Corn Cob Bob' It is sad to see that a company as large as Shell gets their knickers in a knot about a mascot (Short Takes, Better Farming, August, 2005) As a corn grower I take offence at Shell's actions. Perhaps Shell should have paused for a moment to wonder how many of the farmers who grow grain corn, and have been suffering financially, use Shell fuels and lubricants. Randy McLeod Caledon East Write to us We welcome the views of all readers. To be published letters, must be written exclusively to Better Farming and include the writer's name, address and telephone number to allow for verification. Letters may be edited, condensed or rejected. Due to space limitations, we suggest a length of less than 300 words. top back