Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Will an Organic Revival Overthrow the "Green Revolution"?

By Daniel Pepper, AlterNet. Posted August 2, 2008.


In places like India, backlash is increasing against the chemical-dependent farming techniques of the "Green Revolution."
Advertisement

Inside a hot, dun-colored courtyard at the edge of India's northwestern Punjab state, Jagdev Singh, a wheelchair-bound boy of 15, jerks violently, fruitlessly, in search of some relief. "I can't swat the flies off of my face," says Jagdev. A debilitating muscular disorder (he doesn't know what) prevents him from raising his arms more than few inches above his lap. Doctors in New Delhi have told him the cause is an excess of urea -- a chemical fertilizer used in abundance in the surrounding wheat, rice and cotton fields -- that courses through his bloodstream. Three other children nearby suffer similar fates.

Jagdev's illness is part of a pattern, say villagers, activists, government scientists and academics: early onset of disease brought on by environmental pollutants. Punjab is where India's Green Revolution began, leading the subcontinent out of cycles of famine and realizing the dream of self-sufficiency. But after decades of overusing fertilizers, farmers are now saying that the benefits of the Green Revolution have come at too great a cost, slowly siphoning the health out of both the soil and the surrounding community. In particular, they say, the high use of fertilizers is leading to a spike in cancer and other illnesses, including reproductive ailments.

Backing up the villagers' claims is a recent study by researchers at Punjabi University that has found a high rate of DNA damage among farmers due to pesticide use. A second study, also conducted this past year, found widespread contamination of drinking water with pesticides and heavy metals, revealing that drinking water is one of the major causes of death in Punjab. The government is slow to take action, say villagers, whose access to health care is often across state lines, via uncomfortable overnight train journeys, in neighboring Rajasthan.

But neither of the two recent studies conclusively link fertilizers to disease, says Tilak Sarangal, the top civil servant in charge of health and family welfare in Punjab. Sarangal points out that according to the latest figures from the Indian Council of Medical Research, cancer rates are around 58 per 100,000 in the area worst affected by the overuse of pesticides and fertilizers, far below the national average of about 70 to 90 cases per 100,000. "Certainly we are in a danger zone as far as the toxicity and danger of fertilizers are concerned," says Sarangal. "Whether (cancer rates) are as good as other parts of Punjab and elsewhere in the country," he cannot say for certain. The state government is now commissioning two new cancer survey studies as well as the construction of two new specialty cancer hospitals in Punjab.

But public health professionals, farmers, doctors and academics all agree that Punjab is overloaded with pesticides and say they see a correlation. Punjab is one of the biggest users of fertilizers in India -- some of which are highly toxic and banned, but easily accessible in the marketplace.

However, a new, growing association of organic farmers in Punjab is championing a high-value, low-yield anti-marketplace approach to farming. Their products pose a dilemma to the government: The fruits and grains may be healthier and environmentally sustainable, but many doubt that organic farmers can feed an entire nation.

"This is a country that can well remember mass hunger," says Sarangal. "The Green Revolution came in, and today we are quite comfortable. If we go back to organic food, how will we feed ourselves?"

Starting in 1964, the Green Revolution transformed Punjab overnight into India's breadbasket, doubling its output of wheat and rice and supplying almost half of India's grain. With the advent of new irrigation techniques, hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and mechanization, Punjab's farmers became heroes of a self-sufficient India, no longer dependent upon shipments of foreign grain. But times have changed, says Professor R.K. Mahajal, an agricultural economist at Punjabi University. "The Green Revolution is not as green as it was earlier -- it has now become brown and pale," says Mahajal. "The profit margins have skewered to the minimum. At this rate, in 50 years Punjab will become a desert, like Rajasthan."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: agriculture, india, farming, pesticides, green revolution

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Myths
Posted by: oregoncharles on Aug 3, 2008 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a myth that organic farming produces lower yields. Look up the Rodale Institute: side-by-side trials show similar production, but with cheaper inputs in the organic fields and better long-term prospects.

This is what the interviewed farmer (Sharma?) is saying - his costs are less, his yields are rising to meet the chemical fields near him.

He also points out that there is a transition: yields drop, then recover as the underlying fertility of the soil recovers. So if every farmer converted at the same time, India would face food shortages. That is extremely unlikely.

The Green Revolution was a bit of a scam: it raised production because it introduced modern farming techniques. At the same time, it made growers dependent on costly commercial inputs: fertilizer, pesticides, tractors and fuel. And it claimed that the inputs were the cause of the higher yields.

Organic farming uses the same improved knowledge of soil fertility, but substitutes the farmer's care and biological inputs for the chemicals promoted in the Green Revolution. We see the same pattern in this country: farmers going broke everywhere, at least until the present bubble in food prices, because they are simply spending too much on production.

The real key probably lies with the Amish. They aren't ascetic, you know, just careful about the technology they use. And they earn more, net, on 100 acres than their neighbors do on a thousand, because they don't spend much on tractors or chemicals. They aren't afraid of hard work, either, and they help each other out.

I'm not endorsing the restricted life-style of the Amish, though it seems to work well for the right people (they lose a certain percentage of their young people.) But motivated by their religion, they've conducted an extremely useful experiment in sustainable agriculture.

The Indians might learn even more from Cuba, which had no choice but to develop sustainable ways to feed itself. Their conditions are much more like India's. I'm afraid that whole example might be lost if their trade status was suddenly normalized, and they were flooded with American bads.

Very interesting article; I hope to see more like it on Alternet. We all eat, and would like to continue doing that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Myths Posted by: edgar1
minor quibble
Posted by: weGotCactus on Aug 4, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An encouraging article, but the author seems to be using the words 'fertilizer' and 'pesticide' as if they were identical.



I doubt there are many banned fertilizers...

Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are indeed both problematic, but cause different problems. The conflation of the two weakens the article. (To make the very valid points the article is trying to make, the science and the terminology have to be precise.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A return to organic farming
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 5, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keith Akers addresses the moral question of killing insects in A Vegetarian Sourcebook: "What about insects? While there may be reason to kill insects, there is no reason to kill them for food. One distinguishes between the way meat animals are killed for food and the way insects are killed.

"Insects are killed only when they intrude upon human territory, posing a threat to the comfort, health, or well-being of humans. There is a huge difference between ridding oneself of intruders and going out of one's way to find and kill something which would otherwise be harmless."

According to Akers:

"These questions may have a certain fascination for philosophers, but most vegetarians are not bothered by them. For any vegetarian who is not a biological pacifist, there would not seem to be any particular difficulty in distinguishing ethically between insects and pla nts on the one hand, and animals and humans on the other."

I'd like to see a return to organic farming. In 1989, concern over the use of the pesticide Alar on apples caused many Americans to consider organic produce. We produce pesticides at a rate some 13,000 times faster than we did in the 1950s. Our environment is being flooded by pesticide compounds.

Poisons used to kill insects accumulate on crops, in the soil and in greater concentration in the tissues of living creatures higher on the food chain. The EPA's Pesticide Monitoring Journal reports that "Foods of animal origin (are) the major source of pesticide residues in the diet."

In his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, How to Survive in America the Poisoned, Lewis Regenstein writes: "Meat contains approximately 14 times more pesticides than do plant foods...Thus, by eating foods of animal origin, one ingests greatly concentrated amounts of hazardous chemicals."

A 1976 study by the EPA found the breast milk of mothers who eat animal flesh to be 50 to 100 times more contaminated by pesticide residues than the milk of vegetarian mothers.

Organic farming and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are getting more attention today. These utilize natural insect controls, such as predatory insects, weather, crop rotation, pest-resistant varieties, soil tillage, and other environmentally safe practices.

A 1979 Department of Agriculture task force of scientists and economists came to "...positive conclusions on the importance of organic farming and its potential contributions to agriculture and society." Until the end of the Second World War, American farmers produced bountiful harvests without relying on pesticides. There is no reason why America cannot do so again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]