Feeding the planet without devouring the world
Agriculture has transformed our landscapes from wild and diverse to tamed and diseased. But why must we kill to cultivate? Australia faces the choice to either continue the destructive cycle of poisoning our planet, or to lead the world beyond the 'Green Revolution'.
Until 12,000 years ago, human life positively contributed to the world’s native ecology. We played a key role in the food web and supported nature's biodiversity by eating a wide range of foods. Since then, agriculture has transformed what we eat, how we live, and how we think. Our relationship with the world changed from one of (somewhat) peaceful cooperation to one of absolute domination. Hunters and gatherers became cultivators and shepherds. Animals and plant kin became pests and weeds. Biodiversity became an obstacle to the production of a limited range of plant and animal species.
Despite having 400 animals and 50,000 (edible) plants to choose from, 75% of the calories we consume globally today come from just 12 plants and 5 animal species. More than 40% of those calories come from just three crops (rice, wheat and corn).
To keep up with population growth, agriculture has expanded to cover half of the world's habitable land. It is responsible for three-quarters of deforestation, 70% of freshwater withdrawals, and 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The homogenisation of the earth’s plant and animal species has severely degraded biodiversity through habitat destruction, land degradation and water contamination. By 2050, farmers will need to produce 70% more food to meet the demands of a growing population.
So how can we continue to feed the world without devouring the planet?
The Green Revolution requires evolution:
The development of intensive agriculture, which is the increased use of synthetic fertilisers, agrochemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fungicides) and water, has meant that more food can be grown on less land. This breakthrough was termed the Green Revolution. It enabled global food production to triple, which was necessary to feed the world population, as it has nearly doubled since the 1960’s. The sustainability of maintaining these intensive practices has recently been called into question, becoming a point of increasing public concern. The agricultural sector’s reliance on chemical weed killers to grow food is among the most pressing of these concerns.
Considered a primary tool in the Green Revolution, glyphosate, patented under the name RoundUp by Monsanto in 1974, is the most commonly used weed killer. Due to its low cost and effectiveness against weeds, glyphosate currently contaminates 100% of the earth's cropland. That's about 16 million square kilometres of land. To put this into perspective, this chemical occupies cropland equivalent to the size of Russia.
SOURCE: The global environmental hazard of glyphosate - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137167
Following its invention, glyphosate quickly replaced tilling as the primary form of weed control. Tilling involved mechanically turning and disrupting soil (at a huge labour cost) and was great at killing weeds and pests. However, it also released huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, leaving soil susceptible to erosion. With the use of glyphosate, farmers lost less of their soil to erosion and were able to produce more crops at a lower cost.
However, in March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that glyphosate was linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of deadly cancer. In light of this research, countries such as Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Germany banned glyphosate for household use. Further research exposed that glyphosate also had accumulative effects on the environment, causing several diseases that impact birds, mammals, and insects.
Despite this, glyphosate was just reapproved for another ten years of use in the EU.
As of 2022, Monsanto had settled over 100,000 lawsuits related to its association with cancer. This amounted to $11 Billion USD, and there are 30,000 lawsuits still pending. This is not just a foreign problem. Australia, a major contributor to the world’s agricultural output, is still actively using glyphosate. Eight hundred Australians are involved in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, and the initial trial is currently underway.
As well as posing environmental and health-related threats, herbicide resistance is one of the biggest sustainability issues associated with modern intensive agriculture. Among sprayed weeds, the most resilient remain. Forty years of this repeated process has created ‘superweeds’ - ultra-resistant weeds which require more, or novel chemicals to control them. Despite this, the use of glyphosate is expected to increase from 750,000 tonnes to 920,000 tonnes by 2025.
To improve the sustainability of agriculture, reducing our reliance on potentially carcinogenic and environmentally persistent chemicals is a paramount concern. As the list of countries that have banned glyphosate has grown, so has the pressure for Australia to follow. Now, Australia faces a choice: continue the destructive cycle of poisoning our planet, or lead the world into the Green Evolution.
How to bite the hand that feeds you:
So, how did it get so bad? Who approved the use of these chemicals?
Well, glyphosate is registered for use under the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). The APVMA receives 90% of its funding from multinational agrochemical giants such as Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018), Syngenta, Nutrien, Adama, Corteva and Australian-owned Nufarm. These companies are also major financial partners of government organisations, such as the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) and Cotton Australia. This means that questioning the sustainability of chemical use in Australian agriculture would require regulatory and industry bodies to bite the hand that feeds them.
These huge companies also fund the people advising farmers. Agronomists are plant and soil scientists who liaise between farmers and agricultural researchers. They provide recommendations to farmers about products and practices that may improve the productivity of their farms. Historically, agronomists were employed by the Department of Agriculture. Now, they are increasingly associated with agrochemical-funded retailers.
There is an obvious conflict of interest between Australia’s $12 billion AUD agrochemical industry and agronomists recommending more sustainable weed control methods that reduce herbicide use. Without fully independent regulatory government and advisory bodies in Australian agriculture, how can we fight for more sustainable farm practices?
This piece is a call to arms. It seeks to show that political action is required to untangle Australian agriculture from agrochemical industries. An increased awareness of ‘Big Ag’ and its influence on Australian pesticide regulation is required to mobilise citizens on this mounting issue. Our approach cannot be top-down. Change is required on the ground. More specifically, change is required in the soil.
It is important to acknowledge that farmers struggle to reduce their reliance on chemical weed killers, despite them being one of their biggest expenses. With the small margins they receive for selling to supermarkets such as Woolworths and Coles, farmers are forced to reckon with a market that favours quantity over quality. Unfortunately, those trying to make a change by using fewer chemicals and fertilisers do not receive enough of a premium price for these products to cover the loss of production. Currently, the barriers farmers face in reducing their reliance on herbicides is increasing the industry’s risk of a business-as-usual approach to sustainability.
So, what would a life after herbicides look like?
In a best-case scenario, leading agricultural countries will phase out herbicides over the next decade or so. When they do, multiple novel and innovative approaches must be considered to ensure food systems remain productive and profitable. The average age of farmers in Australia is 59, with 50% expected to retire within the next 15 years. A new generation of farmers holds the promise of ushering in a brighter future for the widespread adoption of sustainable farm practices. To aid in this transition, Australians must address the chemical industry’s capture of the APVMA, achieve international equivalency in organic certification, and provide farmers with the communities and resources needed to facilitate a gradual transition to more sustainable production.
A full reference list for this article can be found here.