Luomun monet nimet

[Heikki Jokipii]

Edellisen puheenvuoron jatkoksi. Tämä kanadalainen alkaa olla kypsä asialle:

Viewpoint: Debunking organic food myths again… and again

Over and over, the term ‘organic’ is used as an umbrella for a variety of qualitative features in food. There is an assumption that all organic products are healthier and safer than conventionally produced food, especially when considering the practices used. However, as exhibited nearly a decade ago, organic foods are not pesticide-free, much to the chagrin of consumers who perhaps purchase organic for exactly that reason. This seems counterintuitive for an industry that can broadly classify its products as “low-input.” Therefore, to be as informed about food options as possible, it is important to first understand the real restrictions of organic production.

I want to make it very clear that this blog is not anti-organic, as the ethos of organic production is very similar to regenerative agriculture: reduce external inputs wherever possible. Canada is not organic-averse either. While just looking at Saskatchewan figures, where there are no provincial organic regulations, one would assume organic is a venture from which farmers are deterred, as the provincial agricultural position in the organic space conceals the declining (but slowing) trend in certified farms. In reality, the number of organic acres across Canada has quadrupled since the turn of the century. In the last five years alone, the value of Canadian organic products has increased by 145%, which is used to suggest the high price organic products garner from the grocery store offsets the lower yield as a result of localized inputs. But it is not a stretch to suggest that the certification rigour may put farmers off from officially moving from a conventional to an organic operation.

Jatkoksi siksikin, että kirjoittajalla on selviä sympatioita regeneratiivista viljelyä kohtaan.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Sopusointu rakoilee:

Divide emerges between supporters of organic labels vs regenerative ag claims in battle for ‘sustainably-conscious’ consumers

USDA Certified Organic has taken a defensive position in recent years against the proliferation of eco-claims, many of which are not as comprehensive, clearly defined or held as rigorously accountable, but which nonetheless influence consumers’ purchase decisions.

…

At the Organic Trade Association’s annual conference in Washington… members debated the value and impact of eco-claims beyond organic to promote holistic change to agriculture systems and if or how organic should respond to simultaneously reinforce shared values without compromising its competitive edge.
…

“Eco labels … are everywhere. There are the old ones, like Organic and Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance, all the way around to regenerative, net zero, carbon neutral, and [claims about] plastics, fish and wildlife. Every week, every month there is a new label or new claim coming out,” Paul Schiefer, president of Amy’s Kitchen, told attendees at OTA’s conference.rganic labels vs regenerative ag claims in battle for ‘sustainably-conscious’ consumers

Ja siis luomuväki itse alkaa hermostua näistä monista nimistä.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Savonlinnassa halutaan asukkaille (turisteille?) kertoa tästä:

Tutustu Permakulttuuripuutarhaan ja Poimi Yrttejä

Olon puutarha rakentuu pitkäjänteisen ja luontoa kunnioittavan vision päälle. Permakulttuuri ja regeneratiivinen puutarhanhoito kukoistavat tämän esteettisen maailaisidyllin hengessä. Tule tutustumaan puutarhamme moniuloitteiseen kokonaisuuteen!

Kierroksella opit perusteet kestävästä puutarhoinnista ja omavaraisuudesta sekä pääset poimimaan itsellesi mukaan kimpun luomuyrttejä.

Huom! Tutustumiskierros on mahdollista yhdistää Olo Centerin aamupalaan, joka tarjoillaan alkaen kello 9.00 (ei sisälly hintaan - lisätiedot: https://www.olocentre.com/menu ).

[Heikki Jokipii]

Ei saada lukea kovin paljon. Mutta tässä taas kielteinen tulkinta regeneratiivisen viljelyaatteen vaikutuksesta:

Viewpoint: ‘Regenerative agriculture could be seen as a dangerous distraction from farmers’ core mission: Feeding the world’

[Heikki Jokipii]

Paul Driessen ei pidä näistä ideoista:

Viewpoint: Why is the World Economic Forum waging war against modern agriculture and hurting developing countries?

They say people in Africa, Asia and Latin America should practice subsistence farming �" which they prefer to call “traditional” farming, Agro-Ecology, “food sovereignty,” or the “right to choose” “culturally appropriate” food produced through “ecologically sound and sustainable methods,” based on “indigenous agricultural knowledge and practices.”

In plain English, Agro-Ecology is rabidly opposed to biotechnology, monoculture farming, non-organic fertilizers, chemical pesticides, and even mechanized equipment and hybrid seeds.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Artikkeli pureutuu tähän väitteeseen regeneratiivisen viljelyn oletetuista eduista (ja keinoista):

Breakthough Institute: Are cover crops the silver bullet to reduce agricultural carbon emissions as regenerative-farming enthusiasts claim? Time for a rethink

Suoraan sen johtopäätökseen:

The climate benefits of cover crops are generally overstated and overestimated. In many cases, paying farmers to plant cover crops has little to no climate benefit. Understanding the reasons why can help maximize the climate benefits of cover crop efforts and illustrates the need for greater support for other climate mitigation practices.

Jota artikkeli vielä tuonkin kappaleen jälkeen perustelee.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Driessen ei edelleenkään jaa uskoa tähän liikkeeseen:

Viewpoint: The agroecology movement is turning against technology in agriculture, and the poor suffer

Reinforcing this message, Stop Ecocide Now founder Jojo Mehta expanded on Greta Thunberg’s incendiary 2020 rant that “our house is on fire and you’re fueling the flames.” Farming is a “serious crime,” equal to “genocide,” Ms. Mehta told elites at the 2024 WEF meeting in Davos.

Their grasp of agriculture is epitomized by Michael Bloomberg’s suggestion that anybody can be a farmer: “You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, you add water, up comes the corn.”

Their hatred of biotech crops is intense and well-documented. But many also despise hybrid seeds. They want modern herbicides and insecticides banned, in favor of “natural” alternatives �" which are often toxic to bees, fish, other animals and people and have not been tested for long-term harm to humans.

These agricultural anarchists also demand “natural” fertilizers, which typically provide a fraction of the nutrients that modern synthetic fertilizers do. At the very least, they want global organic farming, which would mean much lower crop yields per acre than conventional farming, and plowing many millions of additional acres of wildlife habitat and scenic land, to get the same amounts of food.

They say people in Africa, Asia and Latin America should practice subsistence farming �" which they prefer to call “traditional” farming, Agro-Ecology, “food sovereignty,” or the “right to choose” “culturally appropriate” food produced through “ecologically sound and sustainable methods,” based on “indigenous agricultural knowledge and practices.”

In plain English, Agro-Ecology is rabidly opposed to biotechnology, monoculture farming, non-organic fertilizers, chemical pesticides, and even mechanized equipment and hybrid seeds.

Ja haljuilua "ruokasuvereniteetin" iskusanaa kohtaan:

You can imagine how Agro-Ecologists would react if African farmers wanted to assert their food sovereignty, self-determination and right to choose by planting biotech corn (Bt-corn), to get higher yields, reduce pesticide use, enjoy better living standards and send their kids to school. The agro-anarchists would vilify them as vile supporters of violence against women, land-grabbing corporations, mass expropriation of indigenous rights, genocide and other “crimes against humanity.”

[Heikki Jokipii]

Ei tule tässäkään yleisökirjoituksessa selväksi, miten asia eroaa luomusta:

Uudistava viljely on osa isompaa ruokajärjestelmän muutosta

Tällaiset yksityiskohdat vihjaavat siitä, että ei mitenkään (lihav. HJ):

[..] Sen aikaansaamiseksi mukaan tarvitaan kaikki toimijat aina politiikasta, ruokaketjun yrityksiin, kauppaan kuluttajiin ja viljelijöihin.

Yritykset voivat nopeuttaa ja skaalata muutosta esimerkiksi ostokriteereillä, lisähinnalla ja koulutusta tarjoamalla.[..]

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämä kirjoittaja ei ole langennut agroekologian seireenilauluun:

Viewpoint: Lower-yield agroecology promises ignore evidence that advanced plant breeding, modern fertilizers and other inputs needed to grow more food on less land

Calls for transforming food systems have grown over the past several years. International governance organizations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), have issued many of these calls. Other calls have come from activist organizations, too numerous to list. A common theme from both the FAO and activists is that the current system is ‘broken’ and requires a complete rethink and overhaul. Examples offered on how food systems are ‘broken’ include agriculture’s reliance on synthetic pesticides and fertilizer crop inputs, plant breeders’ rights that facilitate the development of new crop varieties, and the liberalization of international trade rules. The problem with this approach of pointing fingers is that it ignores the accomplishments made over recent decades in food production and supply chains. Yes, food systems are not perfect, there is room for improvement, but to call them ‘broken’ is intentionally misleading.

Common themes advocated by activist organizations include a return to ancestral crop varieties, produced through agroecological (organic) production practices that reject the use of yield-boosting synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. When it comes to sustainably increasing crop yields, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development confirms that since 1960, global crop production has increased by 390%, with land use increasing by just 10%, due to farm adoption of improved crop genetics, and the integration of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Before 1960, food production was predominantly done in line with current agroecology/organic requirements, that is, without improved crop genetics or synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. At this time, the only way food production could be increased through agroecology systems was to bring more land into crop production.

Sitten siinä heti perään kaavio 1, jossa esitetään maailman väkiluvun ja viljasatojen kehitys vuosilta 1960-2020. Sen perään tämä kappale:

Activist organizations openly reject over 60 years of robust yield increase evidence, instead advocating myths such as those expressed by the German Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, which states that agroecology “…promises a way out of the vulnerability imposed by monocultures and the dependency on external inputs such as chemical fertilizers, hybrid seeds and pesticides.” Regrettably, activist organizations such as this are communicating false information in countries where food systems require improvement.

[Heikki Jokipii]

UK:ssa, jossa regeneratiivinen viljely on jossakin maineessa myös niin sanoakseni rationaalisen maatalousväen parissa, on nyt ilmennyt tällainen ristiveto:

Here’s how the organic industry greenwashes its commitment to regenerative agriculture

Pro-innovation think-tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) has written to the Advertising Standards Agency’s head of complaints and investigations, Miles Lockwood, calling on the ASA to investigate potentially misleading claims made by the Soil Association in relation to organic farming and regenerative agriculture.

On [November 7, 2024], the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) issued new advice warning that the lack of consistent definitions and metrics [concerning] regenerative agriculture could give rise to potentially misleading and/or unsubstantiated marketing and advertising claims.

Four days later, the Soil Association issued a press statement welcoming the ASA’s advice, and claiming that certified organic agriculture was the only independently accredited, “gold standard” form of regenerative agriculture and, therefore, less open to the potential risk of ‘greenwashing’.

Soil Association on UK:n luomuliitto.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämä kirjoitus ei anna armoa luomulle sen millään nimellä:

Viewpoint: Agroecology and other variations on organic farming that seek to mimic nature are doomed to fail

Organic farming, regenerative agriculture, and agroecology all aim to mimic nature under the assumption that natural systems offer the best solutions to challenges in crop production. A [special] issue of the journal Outlook on Agriculture reviewed several such efforts. Developing perennial grains, using biodiversity for pest control, and achieving regenerative agriculture’s goal of restoring soils, all produced mixed results.

We should expect this because the mimic-nature strategy is the result of flawed thinking. First, [it fails] to recognise the fundamental differences between natural ecosystems and human-managed crop production. And second, in the approach’s appeal to nature, which assumes [nature] is inherently good.

There is a better way: test all potential solutions, [and] keep what is useful.

(lihav. alkup.)

Vielä kirjoituksen loppukappaleet:

This whatever-works strategy is what we find, right now, in all modern “conventional” farming. It holds no bias for or against natural or unnatural; if it works and is cost-effective, it can be used. Conventional production is diversified by including both natural and unnatural methods and materials. Rather than conventional, I like the term full-toolbox farming; we shouldn’t let flawed thinking limit what we have in our toolbox.

A toolbox that contains all useful tools, natural and unnatural, will be larger and more effective than a toolbox limited by flawed “appeal to nature” thinking.

***

Tämä sitten taas tavallaan antaa:

Smart agriculture: African farmers urged to gradually reduce use of pesticides and fertilizers rather than abandon them to reduce risk of significant crop and economic losses

After decades of mono-cropping and overgrazing, around 65% of Africa’s farmland is now considered unproductive or degraded, leaving more than 270 million people facing chronic hunger. But while there is general agreement that food security is a priority for Africa, how to achieve it is a far more polarised debate.

In February, the Africa Fertilizer and Soil Health Summit concluded in Kenya with the signing of the Nairobi Declaration by African heads of state. It included a fertiliser plan that, over the next 10 years, will triple the use of both organic and inorganic fertilisers across Africa….

For AFSA, which is a coalition of civil society groups and farmers, the answer to food security in Africa lies with the concept of agroecology, and combining traditional, local knowledge with science to restore biodiversity and build more resilient food systems. “Agroecology is modern science that uses indigenous ways,” he says. “It’s about working with nature, not against it.”

Vai onko tuohon "älykkääseen viljelyyn" itse asiassa kätkettynä täsmälleen sama ajatus kuin professori Andrew McGuirella edellä! Mutta "myydään" tuossa "paketissa"?

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tässä on eräs, joka uskoo tai toivoo, että löytyisi järjellinen ydin:

Here’s how to transform regenerative agriculture from an ideology into data and outcome-based agriculture that delivers on its promise

The recent publication of the SAI Platform’s global framework document for defining and measuring the outcomes of regenerative agriculture provides a welcome and much-needed injection of science-based thinking. In expressing the resource use and environmental impacts of regen ag farming practices per unit of production, this model provides a more meaningful and evidence-based approach to measuring farm-level sustainability than other more subjective models such as the Sustainable Food Trust’s Global Farm Metric and the Sustainable Markets Initiative, writes Dr Julian Little.

Minä näen sen jo toivottomana. Sana ja käsite on kertakaikkiaan pilattu. "Agroekologian" tavoin.

[Heikki Jokipii]

MT kertoi:

Maanviljelijöille on perustettu uusi neuvontaorganisaatio �" tavoitteena viljelijöiden elämänlaadun parantaminen ja ruuantuotannon irrottaminen fossiilitaloudesta

Maa-akatemia osuuskunta kokoaa itsenäisiä maatalousneuvojia saman katon alle. Osuuskunnan neuvojilla on asiantuntemusta etenkin kestävästä viljelystä.
Tilaajalle

Tuosta pätkästä ei voinut olla vielä varma, mistä on kyse. Mutta tätä kautta...

https://www.asiakastieto.fi/yritykset/fi/maa-akatemia-osuuskunta/35009742/rekisteritiedot

... löytyi kotisivu:

https://www.maa-akatemia.fi/

Ja siellähän ne kaikki ovat:

Uudistava viljely       Luomu       Agroekologia       Permakulttuuri​

Myös toimijoiden joukossa on vanhoja tuttuja, mm. Juuso Joona.

[Heikki Jokipii]

David Zaruk ei tälle vaihtoehdolle armoa anna:

Viewpoint: Agroecology is a cult dogma that is taking global agriculture hostage

Agroecology is a cult dogma that imposes arbitrary political restrictions on agriculture (no industry involvement, no global trade, no innovative technologies, no synthetic inputs…). As a medieval farming ideology, it embraces peasant agriculture, social justice and a holistic, communal approach to food. Often heralded as a solution in under-developed regions with no access to agrotechnology (or education), it has been politely ignored in agronomy circles as a sideshow, much like the biodynamic or permaculture ideology-based practices.

Ja se on potentiaalisesti vaarallinen ilmiö:

That is … until now.

I recently did a podcast with the plant biologist, Rob Wager, who shared a story of how he crashed an agroecology conference in Kenya in 2019 and was surprised to see the financial resources behind the event. The others on the podcast could not understand how the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) could throw its support behind an intentionally low-yielding farming ideology.

Since my article in the Outlook on Agriculture journal (concluding that agroecology was a political agenda and not an agricultural solution), I have learnt how foundations work together behind the scenes via fiscal sponsors and how they finance United Nations programs. I decided to take a closer look at who was behind the agroecology movement and the campaign to bring agriculture back to the Dark Ages.

Tuo vaihtoehto... vaikkei nyt ehkä jyllää, niin kyllä kiemurtelee siellä täällä. Vrt. juuri edellä.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Ei se rege näin toimi:

Viewpoint: Regenerative agriculture that does not include the judicious crop chemicals to fight insects and disease is doomed to fall way short