Retailer
bans on certain farming technologies often have unintended consequences,
sometimes even undermining the intent of the ban, argues Al Mussel in his third
of a four-part series on “Four Fallacies in Sustainable Agriculture”.
For
example, banning Roundup-Ready genetically-modified corn and soybean hybrids
will prompt farmers to control weeds with other pesticides that are generally
more risky for people and the environment than glyphosate, the active
ingredient in Roundup.
For
another example, banning cages for housing laying hens likely means they will
be raised in open pens where they tramp through litter, increasing the
incidence of diseases and death rates.
Mussel
says what’s needed is a better understanding of farming systems so the people
who are pondering technology bans can work with farmers to achieve the desired
results – eg. less antibiotic resistance, healthier and happier hens, lessened
pesticide use and risks.
Mussel
begins his paper by noting that public pressures exist “across a range of
parameters, including carbon footprint, water use, pesticides, fertilizers,
antibiotics, hormones and growth promotants, animal welfare, labour standards,
as well as others.
“In
some cases, specific technologies or techniques related to the above have been
targeted,
such as genetically modified, specific pesticides, specific animal health
products,
certain
livestock housing systems, etc.
“However,
important aspects of this movement are simplistic, misguided, or simply
wrongheaded, and following these through to their logical extent presents the
prospect of
pitfalls
for the agri-food system,” Mussel writes.
His
paper is available on the George Morris Centre website where he is the senior
researcher.
“Perhaps
more fundamentally, it begs the question as to how the agri-food system, and
primary agriculture in particular, grew to become so unsustainable to begin
with,” he writes.
“In
Canada many generations of farmers have seen themselves as stewards of the land,
farm product production has greatly increased and intensified, and rather than
starve or cause
mass illness, we have produced significant surpluses for export at steady or
improving quality
standards.”
This
leads to his conclusions that:
1. Effort
is required to thoroughly understand the nature of farm production that you
seek to
regulate
through standards you place on farm technologies.
The
technical expertise to understand this will go well beyond the standard
procurement or sustainability manager skill set, and
may require expertise not typically present in food companies.
No
army of auditors unleashed on the countryside to measure compliance with
sustainability protocols will substitute for a
thorough understanding of agricultural production systems and the nature of
potential adaptation
to restrictions on technology.
2. Working
more closely with farmers and farm organizations on the intent of prospective
technology
restrictions/mandates, rather than on specific rules, has a better prospect of
producing
real
sustainability gains.
Sustainability
standards should not be so prescriptive. Farmers are in the best position to
experiment within their own production systems to achieve a desired sustainability
outcome, which they may have never previously paused to think about.
Farm organizations
can help facilitate and coordinate these initiatives across the many farms that
feed
the supply
chain.
3. Having
reasonable expectations as to what can really be achieved is important.
Because
of the complexities of production systems and biological adaptation it will
take time to get
effective
sustainability measures implemented and see results.
These
measures must also move through a diffuse market system to induce compliance,
rather than via a centralized command and
control system.
Patience
will be required for voluntary adoption and learning before real sustainability
results can be seen, from well researched sustainability initiatives that truly
stand
up to
scrutiny.
