Do we need to decide? Organic farming vs. conventional farming

Being in a state of planetary emergency is not an exaggerated statement that a group of marginalised crowd protesting on the streets, but it is a fact that we have already exceeded some of the planetary boundaries currently [1]. One of the primary drivers of this transgression is agricultural production [2]. The way we choose to produce our food, the way we distributed it and the way we consume are the main contributors to the planetary emergency state. Arable lands and pastures constitute one of the biggest terrestrial biomasses, which is approximately 40% of the terrestrial surface [3]. For this reason, agriculture is one of the main contributors to land-system change as a planetary boundary. Another factor affected by agricultural activities is biogeochemical flows. An excessive amount of N fertiliser usage has led to transform the global N cycle [4]. In the light of these facts, it can be concluded that intensive agricultural activities aiming high yields ultimately create a situation where we will not be able to talk about feeding the world because of the risk that it creates on the planet.

Lampkin [5] states in his book that according to The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) the principal aims of organic agriculture are following: Producing food of high nutritional quality while producing in adequate quantity; working with natural systems rather than seeking to dominate them; encouraging and enhance biological cycles within the farming system, involving microorganisms, soil flora and fauna, plants, and animals; maintaining and increase long-term fertility of soils, using, as far as possible, renewable resources in locally organised agricultural systems; working, as far as possible, within a closed system with regard to organic matter and nutrient elements; using as far as possible, with materials and substances which can be reused or recycled, either on the farm or elsewhere; giving all livestock life conditions which allow them to perform the fundamental aspects of their innate behaviour; minimising all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural practice; maintaining the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats; allowing agricultural producers a life according to United Nation human rights, to cover their basic needs, and obtain an adequate return and satisfaction from their work, including a safe working environment; considering the broader social and ecological impact of the farming system; interacting in a constructive and life-enhancing way with all natural systems and cycles. In organic farming, the idea of the soil, as a living system is a component of a perception, which supports that there is a fundamental relation between soil, plant, animal and human. Organic farming requires a more holistic view of how things work in nature, where everything affects everything else [5]. This discourse creates the ultimate difference between organic farming and conventional farming.

Many pesticides have a toxic effect on not only agriculture workers also people consume contaminated foods directly. According to the United Nations report, estimated 200,000 people die each year globally due to chronic exposure to agricultural chemicals [6]. Pesticides have also been associated with long-term health disease such as diabetes; prostate, lung, and Laryngeal cancer; Parkinson's disease; asthma and macular degeneration [7]. On the other hand, pesticides are fatal to worms that have substantial effects on soil fertility by enhancing nutrients in the soil, improving and water-holding capacity and soil structure [5,8]. According to Lampkin [5], in well-established organic farms, pest and disease are not commonly a vital problem because within the optimal soil conditions and balanced nutrition, plants will be resilient to pest and pathogens. However, optimal soil conditions cannot always be straightforward to maintain; requires technological solutions to control. Investing in integrated pest and nutrient management technologies can reduce dependency on agrochemical inputs in the long term.

[1] Rockström, J., et al. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society. 14(32).

[2] Campbell, B. M., et al. 2017. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society, 22(4).

[3] Foley, J. A., et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734) pp.570-574.

[4] Swaney, D. P., B. Hong, C. Ti, R. W. Howarth, and C. Humborg. 2012. Net anthropogenic nitrogen inputs to watersheds and riverine N export to coastal waters: a brief overview. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(2) pp.203-211

[5] Lampkin N. 1990. Organic Farming. United Kingdom: Farming Press Books and Videos

[6] Harry van der Wulp. 2017. UN human rights experts call for global treaty to regulate dangerous pesticides. UN News. 7 March 2017 [Online] Available from: https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/03/552872-un-human-rights-experts-call-global-treaty-regulate-dangerous-pesticides#.WMDpKhiZO8o

[7] Agricultural Health Study, 2018 [Online] Available from: https://aghealth.nih.gov/news/2018.html#p4 [Accessed 8 December]

[8] Muscolo, A., Sidari, M., Pizzeghello, D., and Nardi, S. 2009. Effects of humic substances isolated from earthworm faeces, Dynamic Soil, Dynamic Plant, 2. pp. 45–52.

Photo was taken by the author on Fordhall Organic Farm in Shropshire

Poverty as a Form of Violence

“When they assist you they treat you like a beggar.”

With the beginning of industrialisation and enhancing productivity, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty began to decrease. Thus, the percentage of people in extreme poverty has declined continuously over the last two centuries. This decrease can be undoubtedly seen as one of the most remarkable accomplishments of humankind. Even though the number of people who live in extreme poverty decreased over the last two centuries, about 736 million people still try to live with less than $1.90 (International Poverty Line) a day [1], which means that 1 out of 10 people lives in extreme poverty. The poverty measurement is based on the financial equivalent of people’s consumption. It also needs to be considered that the International Poverty Line is remarkably low. Consequently, living above this threshold does not necessarily mean that poverty and hardship do not apply to those who are living above this threshold [2].

What we understand from poverty portrays the solutions of the poverty problem. Even though income poverty measures are practical due to readily available data allowing comparison of countries over time [3] if we think of poverty just as a number of people who are living with less than a certain amount of money, the solution appears to us in numbers such as number of money to assist their economic situation or amount of food aid help. However, once we understand that poverty is people who struggle with human emotions caused by the most painful conditions such as carrying a child ten kilometres to the hospital to protect him from dying from malaria because of lack of access to local resources [4] or lack of availability of life-saving medications or social exclusion, we can begin to understand the roots of the problem. Poverty also can be a form of experience for people living in marginal social positions, for example, refugees and asylum seekers, and gypsies. Social stigma, economic and social disadvantages such as unemployment, disability and homelessness make the experience of poverty compounded for many people [5].

Poverty is such violence that in order to be understood, it is required to look beyond the numbers but look at the words of people who struggle with poverty. The World Bank published Voices of Poor, which is based on discussions with more than 20,000 poor people from 23 countries in 2000. To illustrate the severity of the situation and suffering it caused to the one who is poor, the following quotation from one of the participants of the discussion group was deemed necessary to point out: “When they assist you they treat you like a beggar”. Poverty is the ultimate symbol of powerlessness. Poverty also requires to be considered that it has the potential of damaging social relationship represented by processes of ‘otherisation’ where the poor are marginalised from the society indirectly [6].

Moreover, according to a study conducted by Reuther et al. [7], people living on low incomes think that there is a common tendency to view them as a burden to society among ‘non-poor’ society members. For the result of this, low-income people develop a strategy to confront the discrimination by isolating themselves from society and concealing their financial conditions as if it is the failure of themselves. This cognitive behaviour, self-blame, can be seen in victims of violence as well [8]. The explanations for the self-blame of victim varies. However, there are three psychological needs have been hypothesised to be served by self-blame. One of them is the need of the victim to believe that he or she is in control of his/her life. Therefore, they can accept blame for their victimisation to maintain this belief. The second one is that victims tend to accept the blame to maintain the idea that the world is a just place in which unfortunate events do not happen by chance. Miller (1983) also points out that, according to Lerner (1980), admitting to the possibility that life is unfair is harder to admit than blaming themselves. The last one is the need of a human to impose meaning on certain occasions, thus self-blame can be the answer for incomprehensible events.

Since poverty is a complex topic itself, for the people who live with less than $1.90 a day or do not have access to primary resources to live, self-blame can be a justification for unfair life conditions that they are living in. However, these lead to overlooking the root causes of the real problem by attributing the whole problem to individuals. On the other hand, 10 per cent of the wealthiest have up to 40 per cent of global income, while the poorest 10 per cent have between 2 and 7 per cent [9]. Due to this fact, poverty is not a problem caused by a lack of resources but the lack of the ability or will to distribute the wealth among the world equally. 25% of the world population is at risk of dying from overeating, another 25 % is at risk of dying from having not enough food, and some people are at risk of dying from both obesity and malnourishment [10]. Having more then what is needed is what has been stolen from the others’ needs, and it is violence. Gandhi may have chosen a powerful word to characterise poverty as ‘violence’ for a call for action that is for social transformation by individual efforts to eliminate the injustice of poverty. Poverty is a quiet form of violence. Poverty is both physical and psychological violence.

Since poverty is complex and interrelated with different factors, we need multidimensional and collective solutions to protect, restore and improve livelihood systems. We need to establish systems that give women and men, poor and wealthy, equal rights to access economic, social and natural resources. In order to accomplish this, we need well-structured policy frameworks at both national and international levels to support investments in poverty reduction activities. Besides, encouraging suitable rural employment and adopting an integrated approach focusing on inclusive economic growth that will benefit small-scale farmers in the region is one of the factors that improve food security resilience. Building good monitoring systems in order to analyse the data in terms of food security is another contribution to improve resilience by facilitating early actions with informed decision-making systems. Implementing educational programmes that pave the way for economic, social and environmental development in developing countries can be another factor in terms of ending poverty.

[1] https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-1-no-poverty.html

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

[3] Collins, S. B. 2005. An understanding of poverty from those who are poor. Action Research. 3(1), pp. 9–31

[4] Sachs, J.D. 2005. The End of Poverty. New York. The Penguin Press.

[5] Ridge, T., 2009. Living with poverty: A review of the literature on children’s and families’ experiences of poverty,

[6] Sutton, E., Pemberton, S., Fahmy, E., Tamiya, Y. 2014

[7] Reutter, L. et al. 2009. Who Do They Think We Are, Anyway?”: Perceptions of and Responses to Poverty Stigma. Qualitative Health Research.

[8] Miller, D. T., Porter, C. A. 1983. Self-Blame in Victims of Violence.

[9] https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-10-reduced-inequalities.html

[10] Carolan. M. S. 2011. The Real Cost of Cheap Food. Abingdon, Earthscan