b'THE RISK CORNER BY: DAVID ZARUKDEFINING ORGANIC:50 SHADES OF GREENW hen the Risk-Mongers Dirtyfor all farmers, many traditional farm- some non-organic techniques), the reac-Dozen list of pesticides used iners define organic solely by doing whattions against large, intensive farming, organic farming was published,benefits the soil (naturally). Soil is thecorporate involvement and the globali-I had broken a taboo. Before that 2015source of life! sation of the food chain has defined it article, most people assumed organicA few years back, organic puristsmainly as a social justice movement. The meant completely pesticide-free. Todaywere outraged that the USDA allowedcall for social justice in developing coun-the word organic has become much morehydroponic-grown food to be labelled astries includes a plea to promote organic elastic as markets increase, new technolo- organic (bioponics). These are not justpractices among smallholders and sub-gies challenge organic farming practices,grown without soil; they tend to consumesistence farmers. Given that most poor and a public has become more concernedlarge volumes of liquid fertilisers andsmallholders are organic by default, the about purpose-built food. energy. While increasing yields withoutonly thing the agroecology/organic move-The organic food lobby responded topesticides, hydroponic farms are alsoment is doing is giving a small amount the attention drawn to their big lie withoften large, capital-intensive operations.of funding and advice without the means more wordplay and deception, claimingMany of the emerging vertical farmingto lift peasant farmers out of poverty. now that organic food is not grown withoperations tick all of the boxes for sus- Agroecology here is more of a politi-any synthetic pesticides or that organictainable agriculture in urban environ- cal ideology of agriculture, with many farmers dont use toxic chemicals. Whenments, but they also tick off most organicwell-known activists like Vandana Shiva confronted with the use of some very haz- traditionalists. claiming it as their own. It adds a politi-ardous organic pesticides like copper sul- cal dimension to the radical organic wing phate or neem oil, they claim that farmersTECHNOLOGISTS (while impoverishing farmers).are only allowed to use small amountsPerhaps the greatest failure for the and only when necessary. In some coun- organic movement was the missed oppor- PIONEERStries, organic farmers are also permittedtunity to allow several of the new plantThere are some third or fourth generation to use certain synthetic pesticides (if thebreeding techniques for organic seedfarmers, often driven by market opportu-organic-approved ones are not efficient).development. There was open debate innities, who can afford to partially rotate But there are thresholds to maintain to2015 about the benefits of NPBTs untilinto large-scale organic production, find or still call their produce organic. anti-industry activists in IFOAM, OCAinnovate on organic methods while devel-To aggravate the situation, each coun- and Corporate Europe Observatoryoping best practices for the next generation try has its own standards and tolerancesshut down the idea. The radical garden- of farming. They are using emerging tech-for what is needed to fulfil the organicers in the organic lobby considered thisnologies, combining planting approaches certification and are not easily forthcom- as GMOs through the back door, notand taking risks. Conventional farmers ing on sharing their preconditions (whichnatural and driven by patents. While Iare looking over the hedge with curiosity. evolve quite frequently). Internationalstruggle with their definition of a nat- Driven by discovery rather than ideology or organic food lobby groups like IFOAMural seed, this discussion showed howlabels, these pioneers are the one hope for dont clearly define acceptable practices,the hardliners see technology merely asthe future of organic agriculture. whether it be on pesticides, seeds, fertil- biotech (and unwelcome). This failure isers or growing methods. to allow science to support nature was aTIME FOR A CHANGESo, what does organic mean and tofatal blow to organic agricultures abilityAs the term organic is merely a market-whom? to be competitive and sustainable. ing tool, carrying no real added value to As technology advances in fields likeconsumer health or the environment, we TRADITIONALISTS precision farming and robotics, will theneed to rethink how food production is From permaculture to biodynamics, atraditionalists continue to obstruct solu- considered. There are some organic prac-traditional organic farmer starts withtions that would help organic farmerstices that are beneficial, but there are also soil health as fundamental, seekingachieve their goals while making a living?conventional technologies and synthetic approaches to reduce fertilisers andThis (younger) part of the movement willsubstances that better improve yields and increase biodiversity. The term regen- have to speak louder if they are ever toprotect the environment. With the chal-erative agriculture was promoted by thesecure a future for organic farming.lenges facing agriculture, we need prag-Organic Consumers Association, but thismatism and ingenuity, not blind, cultish term has now been adopted by conven- AGROECOLOGISTS ideology and fear-driven marketing cam-tional farmers practising conservationMany in the organic lobby have pinnedpaigns. My next column will look at an agriculture (no-till farming with complextheir colours onto the agroecology mast.alternative to this organic/conventional cover crops terminated with herbicides).While there are many definitions andpolarity by introducing a concept called While soil health is the main concernstandards for agroecology (includingbetter farming.EUROPEAN-SEED.COMIEUROPEAN SEED I 27'