We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
“Industrial agriculture is responsible for 70% of deforestation in Latin America, one of the main drivers of ecological impact, up to 40% of GHG emissions come from industrial agriculture. Only during the 20th century, 75% of the cultivated varieties were lost and currently 22% of the livestock breeds are in danger of extinction ”.
One proof among others of this fact that plagues the majority of humanity is the orientation that large-scale companies make of food produced on a large scale.
However, small-scale agriculture, which respects the environment, despite being the largest in terms of number of farms, only occupies 25% of the world's agricultural area. It is therefore millions of people, cultivating a small portion of the available arable land who feed the world.
Industrial agriculture (the large-scale economy) has not only most of the land but also water, seeds, science and technology, why does it only produce 20% of the world's food?
The answer is so simple that it is scary: it is not intended, it is not its objective. Industrial agriculture produces goods for markets, not food for people. The cultivation of soybeans and corn for the manufacture of feed or fuels, the oil palm to manufacture shampoo or chocolate bars, cotton and other fibers for the huge cheap clothing industry, are some examples of this. Therefore, the objective of industrial agriculture is not to feed the world, but to transform farmland into one more commodity.
In the logic of industrial agriculture, the "brokers" can buy millions of tons of wheat on the stock market, but millions of people cannot afford to buy the most basic foods.
Could it be otherwise? Yes; but is not.
Environmental impact of uncontrolled agribusiness
After several decades of unbridled industrialization of agriculture, the evidence about the environmental impacts it generates is overwhelming. Industrial agriculture is responsible for 70% of deforestation in Latin America, one of the main drivers of ecological impact, up to 40% of GHG emissions come from industrial agriculture. XX 75% of cultivated varieties were lost and currently 22% of livestock breeds are in danger of extinction. Biodiversity is invaluable, in a context of changing climate, cultivated diversity is the key to producing food in a future with an uncertain climate.
This is the story of industrial agriculture, a story that is repeated to us to justify how necessary it is and will be to feed a larger population. Meanwhile, reality raises a cry in the sky letting us know that hunger in the world is not due to lack of food, but to the theft of resources, where land is not used to produce food, but mainly to feed shareholders and shareholders. banks. Industrial agriculture plays with the livelihood of the poorest population and with an increasingly deteriorated planet.
Criticism of transgenics that supposedly ended hunger
Some experts clarify that if transgenic crops were really used to try to alleviate hunger in the world, then they should have one or more of the following characteristics:
- Seeds capable of growing in poor, salinized, contaminated soils ...
- Crops with more proteins and nutrients, high yield, without the need for expensive inputs (machinery, agrochemicals, biocides ...)
- Designed for subsistence farmers, not for industrialized large estates.
- Cheap and easily accessible seeds.
- Crops to feed people, not livestock.
And it can be assured that none of the transgenic crops that are already commercialized have any of the characteristics mentioned. The first transgenic crops that have been introduced into the food chain (soybeans and corn) are destined to serve as feed for the already excessive cattle herd in the countries of the North, not to feed human beings; they are expensive and are subject to strict industrial property protection conditions; They are designed for the agribusiness ... A full-blown robbery.