Interview: Gaby Allheilig
Johanna Jacobi, in your research on global food systems, you’ve investigated – among other things – the massive growth of pesticide use in Bolivia and Kenya. What are your most important findings?
We found very high use of pesticides especially on large export-oriented farms. In Bolivia, more than 60 different pesticides are sprayed on huge soybean fields that produce feed for Europe and China. By contrast, indigenous populations, who mainly cultivate maize for their livelihoods, use little or no pesticides – but they are being displaced by the expanding soybean production. In Kenya, vegetable farms that export to Europe use seven times more pesticides than those producing food for local consumption. And most of them contain so-called highly hazardous substances, many of which are banned in Switzerland. Despite this, all of the exporting farms investigated were certified with the GLOBALG.A.P. label for “good agricultural practices”.
What explains the enormous use of pesticides in developing countries?
Our study and several others show the same thing: small farmers in South America and Africa increasingly apply pesticides because they are being advised to do so. In Kenya, we’ve seen how small farmers are contracted by vegetable exporters and exclusively produce beans for Europe using large amounts of pesticides. If the produce shows any sign of imperfection, the farmers receive nothing.
_________________________________________________________________________________
“Average pesticide use in Switzerland is much higher than the European average”
_________________________________________________________________________________
Is Swiss agricultural production more environmentally friendly?
According to 2018 data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, average pesticide use in Switzerland – at 4.9 kilos per hectare per year – is much higher than the global overage of 2.6 kilos and the European average of 1.7 kilos. In Europe, pesticide use is only higher in Italy, Ireland, and especially the Benelux countries.
What are the direct health consequences for small farmers?
Small farmers worldwide face major risks. According to studies, the availability of such substances correlates with intentional and unintentional poisonings. The World Health Organization estimates that as many 168,000 people take their own lives with pesticides each year. According to a study from 2020, up to 385 million people suffer some form of pesticide poisoning every year. Paraquat, marketed by Syngenta and others, is especially problematic in this regard. Even very small amounts of it can be lethal.
At the same time, it’s also a fact that half of all plant-based calories come from rice, corn, and wheat, while three quarters of the global meat supply comes from pork, poultry, beef, and buffalo. Despite all the associated problems, how do you propose to replace these huge quantities?
________________________________________________________________________________
“Small farmers produce over half of all food – on significantly less land”
________________________________________________________________________________
Globally, the problem isn’t really the amount of food produced but rather its distribution. Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate in economics, already showed this in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the productivist narrative is still regularly deployed to justify large-scale industrial agriculture. And it’s done even despite the fact that small farmers produce over half of all food. They do so occupying only 25 to 30 per cent of all agricultural land globally and using a fraction of the resources in comparison with industrial agriculture. So they’re pretty efficient.
How do they do it?
Their cultivation is often based on agroecological principles, and these in turn are rooted in biodiversity. As it is, we urgently need more diversity in our food. Today, vast amounts of energy and land are used to produce about five times more meat than makes sense from a nutritional point of view. Meanwhile, we produce far too few fruits, vegetables, pulses, and other essential components of a healthy diet.
___________________________________________________________________________________
“Agroecology isn’t a complement, but rather an alternative to our current food system”
___________________________________________________________________________________
What exactly is meant by agroecology?
Agroecology is a transformative science, practice, and social movement all at once. As a science, it means combining new insights with traditional knowledge. In practice, it means applying ecological principles in sustainable and equitable food systems. One of its main principles is that of (bio)diversity – at the level of the farm itself, across different landscapes, but also in terms of markets, cultures, and nutrition. Diversity builds resilience, not only to ecological stress factors, but also to economic stress factors. During the coronavirus crisis, it was plain to see how quickly everything could be disrupted.
And what does agroecology mean as a social movement?
It develops new, solidarity-oriented concepts and markets with the goal of making healthy, fair, and for the most part locally produced food from intact ecosystems available to everyone. Based on this understanding, agroecology isn’t a complement, but rather a self-determined and sustainable alternative to our current food system. It’s not enough to act as if all that’s needed are a few adjustments here and there – and only in agriculture itself. What’s needed is a far-reaching transformation based on a comprehensive food policy.
________________________________________________________________________
“There are alternatives. But it’s a question of political economy”
________________________________________________________________________
Agroecological systems are most prevalent in places where there are still lots of small farmers. In countries like Switzerland, however, we depend on food and feed imports from abroad. And these imports are only possible if other countries produce significantly more food than is needed for their own domestic consumption.
Trade is not necessarily a bad thing – indeed, it’s needed. For example, right now we have a project in the National Research Programme “Sustainable Economy” in which we’re trying to identify concrete mechanisms for sustainable, fair imports that promote rather than destroy biodiversity. There are absolutely ecological and fair ways of producing soya – which, by the way, grows just as well in Europe as it does in South America. Additionally, there are other fodder crops that can serve as alternatives. But our markets aren’t oriented towards them, and instead focus on soya from South America. So it’s a question of political economy.
In that case, agroecology requires a fundamental transformation of global agriculture and food systems. How can we accomplish such a thing?
The transition to agroecology and a sustainable food system can be described according to five levels, ranging from agricultural production all the way to a fundamental transformation of our food system as a whole (see Box).
