Developing world’s farmers benefit from ‘going organic’

[(((Fergus)))]

A story from last August but nice to have some good news in these dark days.

http://www.preda.net/enlarge.php?img=archive/img/l/09082501-01l.jpg

Photo: Repaing rewards: Angelina Ngoza on her farm in Malawi

AS debate rages in Britain about the relative benefits of organic food,
Catholic international development charity Progressio has said that
‘going organic’ is changing the lives of poor farmers and their families
across the developing world.

Following a recent report by the UK’s Food Standards Agency, which
suggested that organic food has little difference in nutritional value
and “no health benefits”, debate has been raging about whether
organically-grown produce is superior to non-organic food.

But Progressio has said that its work with poor farmers has shown that a
key aspect of organic food has been forgotten — how the use of natural
pesticides, fertilisers and seeds is leading to bigger harvests, less
indebtedness and higher standards of living in the developing world.

‘Traditional’
“I recently returned from visiting organic farmers in Ecuador — where 40
per cent of the population live on less than $2 a day —and it seems a
vital group of people are being forgotten in the debate about the
relative benefits of organic food,” said Progressio’s campaigns officer,
Brie O’Keefe.

“Poor farmers around the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by
going organic. Farmers like Alfredo Ruiz and his fellow villagers in the
tiny hamlet of El Cristal in the Andean foothills told me how they have
stopped forking out for expensive chemicals in favour of traditional
methods of growing which they haven’t used for decades.”

Alfredo now sells his produce at the local market and has even started
converting his neighbours to organics.

Brie added: “Communities are re-learning how to manage their natural
resources and producing more reliable, bigger crops and a better living
wage.”

In Malawi, another farmer, Angelina Ngoza, is also reaping the rewards
of going organic.

“Before I knew about organic farming I was forced to buy high- priced
chemical fertilisers to make my crops grow, but I could never afford all
I needed. I was taught to use pesticides and herbicides too, but they
killed small animals and left bums on my arms. I always worried that
these chemicals might one day kill me,” Angelina said.

A year ago, Progressio helped Angelina and 40 of her neighbours to
switch to organic production. So instead of spending most of the profit
from their crops paying for the fertilisers and chemicals used to grow
them, they became self-sufficient.

Angelina added: “After only one year of being organic, I am already
harvesting one extra bag of maize for my family and I know my harvests
will get bigger in future. Organic fanning doesn’t harm the soil, it is
healthier and I can charge more for my vegetables in the market.”

One of Angelina’s neighbours, Grace, said: “We are now in control of our
farming. It means we have more food to eat and more food to sell. It is
disease-free and nutritious.”

Tim Aidred, Pmgressio’s advocacy manager, said: “For many of the world’s
1.4 billion small-scale fanners, the benefit of organics is clear:
better food security and a better life. It is really important that the
public debate on organics takes note of positive stories like Alfredo’s
and Angelina’s.”

[TariqE]

A story from last August but nice to have some good news in these dark days.

http://www.preda.net/enlarge.php?img=archive/img/l/09082501-01l.jpg

Photo: Repaing rewards: Angelina Ngoza on her farm in Malawi

AS debate rages in Britain about the relative benefits of organic food,
Catholic international development charity Progressio has said that
‘going organic’ is changing the lives of poor farmers and their families
across the developing world.

Following a recent report by the UK’s Food Standards Agency, which
suggested that organic food has little difference in nutritional value
and “no health benefits”, debate has been raging about whether
organically-grown produce is superior to non-organic food.

But Progressio has said that its work with poor farmers has shown that a
key aspect of organic food has been forgotten — how the use of natural
pesticides, fertilisers and seeds is leading to bigger harvests, less
indebtedness and higher standards of living in the developing world.

‘Traditional’
“I recently returned from visiting organic farmers in Ecuador — where 40
per cent of the population live on less than $2 a day —and it seems a
vital group of people are being forgotten in the debate about the
relative benefits of organic food,” said Progressio’s campaigns officer,
Brie O’Keefe.

“Poor farmers around the world are lifting themselves out of poverty by
going organic. Farmers like Alfredo Ruiz and his fellow villagers in the
tiny hamlet of El Cristal in the Andean foothills told me how they have
stopped forking out for expensive chemicals in favour of traditional
methods of growing which they haven’t used for decades.”

Alfredo now sells his produce at the local market and has even started
converting his neighbours to organics.

Brie added: “Communities are re-learning how to manage their natural
resources and producing more reliable, bigger crops and a better living
wage.”

In Malawi, another farmer, Angelina Ngoza, is also reaping the rewards
of going organic.

“Before I knew about organic farming I was forced to buy high- priced
chemical fertilisers to make my crops grow, but I could never afford all
I needed. I was taught to use pesticides and herbicides too, but they
killed small animals and left bums on my arms. I always worried that
these chemicals might one day kill me,” Angelina said.

A year ago, Progressio helped Angelina and 40 of her neighbours to
switch to organic production. So instead of spending most of the profit
from their crops paying for the fertilisers and chemicals used to grow
them, they became self-sufficient.

Angelina added: “After only one year of being organic, I am already
harvesting one extra bag of maize for my family and I know my harvests
will get bigger in future. Organic fanning doesn’t harm the soil, it is
healthier and I can charge more for my vegetables in the market.”

One of Angelina’s neighbours, Grace, said: “We are now in control of our
farming. It means we have more food to eat and more food to sell. It is
disease-free and nutritious.”

Tim Aidred, Pmgressio’s advocacy manager, said: “For many of the world’s
1.4 billion small-scale fanners, the benefit of organics is clear:
better food security and a better life. It is really important that the
public debate on organics takes note of positive stories like Alfredo’s
and Angelina’s.”

I hate it when that happens. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

I read this yesterday but didn't comment. It's certainly good news for the farmers.

One point I do have though is that if they are producing more with less costs, surely that should reduce the price of organic goods from these people.

It looks like they are charging the higher organic prices, which is understandable, I would do the same. This does sound like a good deal for all the farmers but if everyone went organic based on this same model then the prices would get more expensive for everyone.

[IndieHibby]

I hate it when that happens. :greengrin

That's exactly the bit I was going to mention! :faf:

Seriously, though, as good as this news is, it's hardly unknown. Since "organic" first became a way of generating a premium, poorer farmers have been finding ways to grow crops that use methods not on the list of "non-organic methods".

Some, as this article suggests, are using 'natural', safe methods. Good on them.

But many are using pesticides and fertilisers that happen not to be on the list, but are just as bad, if not worse.

But we don't know what they are using - at least with "non-organic" we can know what chemicals they use and determine their safety (or otherwise)

:duck:

[(((Fergus)))]

I read this yesterday but didn't comment. It's certainly good news for the farmers.

One point I do have though is that if they are producing more with less costs, surely that should reduce the price of organic goods from these people.

It looks like they are charging the higher organic prices, which is understandable, I would do the same. This does sound like a good deal for all the farmers but if everyone went organic based on this same model then the prices would get more expensive for everyone.

People will always pay more for better quality. If more people produce higher quality, the prices come down.

[(((Fergus)))]

That's exactly the bit I was going to mention! :faf:

Seriously, though, as good as this news is, it's hardly unknown. Since "organic" first became a way of generating a premium, poorer farmers have been finding ways to grow crops that use methods not on the list of "non-organic methods".

Some, as this article suggests, are using 'natural', safe methods. Good on them.

But many are using pesticides and fertilisers that happen not to be on the list, but are just as bad, if not worse.

But we don't know what they are using - at least with "non-organic" we can know what chemicals they use and determine their safety (or otherwise)

:duck:

Sounds from this article that they are returning to traditional methods that do not involve any pesticides/fungicides - certainly none that cost money.

[Woody1985]

People will always pay more for better quality. If more people produce higher quality, the prices come down.

I mentioned that in my post, it would seem like they are still selling at the higher price rather than trying to drive down prices.

It would probably need to be on a much larger scale for it to have any impact, which I think is what you are saying.

[Twa Cairpets]

The article is a little vague in the way it defines organic, and seems to conflate it with traditional. It is also, to my (possibly cynical) mind, something of a puff piece for the religious charity rather than a ringing endorsement of organics.

Statements like "I got an extra bag of maize" is not evidence of success. How much is an extra bag by way of an increase? do they usually get 10 bags or 200 bags? Did non-organic farmers see an increase at the same time etc etc. They may well have got a increase, but on its own its meaningless.

Is there a possibility that being shown better basic farming techniques - not necessarily involving organics has been the difference? Is it maybe that they were buying the worng chemical or misusing them?

I dont know if my normal state of skepticality is to blame, but to me, small anecdotes like this being presented as evidence, even on the basis of it being fluffed up as feel good story, is not helpful to people really understanding where the benefits or otherwise of organics is.

[(((Fergus)))]

The article is a little vague in the way it defines organic, and seems to conflate it with traditional. It is also, to my (possibly cynical) mind, something of a puff piece for the religious charity rather than a ringing endorsement of organics.

Statements like "I got an extra bag of maize" is not evidence of success. How much is an extra bag by way of an increase? do they usually get 10 bags or 200 bags? Did non-organic farmers see an increase at the same time etc etc. They may well have got a increase, but on its own its meaningless.

Is there a possibility that being shown better basic farming techniques - not necessarily involving organics has been the difference? Is it maybe that they were buying the worng chemical or misusing them?

I dont know if my normal state of skepticality is to blame, but to me, small anecdotes like this being presented as evidence, even on the basis of it being fluffed up as feel good story, is not helpful to people really understanding where the benefits or otherwise of organics is.

It does seem to conflate traditional and organic but then traditional farming always has been "organic" in the sense of using only natural fertilisers (rotted animal or vegetable waste).

I think we are right though to be skeptical of labelled "organic" produce in UK supermarkets much of which is in fact produced using "organic" pesticides (the farmers in this story are quoted as using "natural pesticides" but since these are not purchased they may just mean natural predators, e.g. frogs). In terms of taste and nutrition supermarket organics can also be very poor and are basically just a branding exercise, i.e., selling the word "organic" rather than naturally produced food.

Since the farmers in this story are spending nothing on chemical input - organic or otherwise - if does seem they are using natural farming methods and not only working their way out of slavery but also improving the quality of food available to others.

Contrast with the likes of Monsanto who not only charge each year for their patented seeds (which they got from where?) but also charge for the pesticides without which their crops would fail totally. In one method, the farmers live in direct partnership with nature; in the other they are beholden to some foreign company.

[Twa Cairpets]

It does seem to conflate traditional and organic but then traditional farming always has been "organic" in the sense of using only natural fertilisers (rotted animal or vegetable waste).

I think we are right though to be skeptical of labelled "organic" produce in UK supermarkets much of which is in fact produced using "organic" pesticides (the farmers in this story are quoted as using "natural pesticides" but since these are not purchased they may just mean natural predators, e.g. frogs). In terms of taste and nutrition supermarket organics can also be very poor and are basically just a branding exercise, i.e., selling the word "organic" rather than naturally produced food.

Since the farmers in this story are spending nothing on chemical input - organic or otherwise - if does seem they are using natural farming methods and not only working their way out of slavery but also improving the quality of food available to others.

Contrast with the likes of Monsanto who not only charge each year for their patented seeds (which they got from where?) but also charge for the pesticides without which their crops would fail totally. In one method, the farmers live in direct partnership with nature; in the other they are beholden to some foreign company.

Is there not a fairly massive problem here though that nature is not inately benevolent, helpful or good.

If you are a farmer reliant on nature providing all that you need to give you a good crop you're taking a hell of a risk, are you not?

I also think you need to be very considered in the use of the word slavery - not in a PC sense, I hasten to add. But if "natural methods" - whatever they are - require an extra 2 / 3 / 4 hours working in the fields every day, does that not make people literal slaves to the land? Do they have to gather and carry the animal waste themselves, with the attendant health issues involved? Do they spread the muck themselves because motorised tractors are artificial?

Natural fertiliser is basically putting nitrogrn, phishporus and potassium back into the ground via waste. If you accept that the active ingredients are the same, and that there is biochemically no difference between a "natural" and an "artificial" molecule, then surely an easy delivery method of the same chemical is better?