Food for thoughts

Agriculture advances

The Greeks and Romans understood that growing the same crop in a field year after year led to

diminishing returns and so allowed fields to lie fallow every other year, but it was only in the

Middle Ages that the full benefits of crop rotation became apparent. By growing wheat or rye in

one field, pea or bean crops in another and leaving a third fallow, medieval farmers could increase

the output from their land, and in doing so, improve the health of the people. The Middle Ages also

saw other technological advances in agriculture, such as watermills for milling grain and the

widespread use of the more effective “heavy plough” pulled by horses in the recently developed

harness, rather than lumbering oxen.



Agriculture changed little until the 18th century, when the enclosure of land and new tools such as

the metal plough and Jethro Tull’s seed-drill helped bring about the first agriculture revolution. A

four-crop rotation system devised in Holland encouraged animal husbandry, since turnips were one

of the 4 crops and could used animal feed. The animals’ manure in turn fed the soil.

In the Victorian period steamships and refrigeration meant agricultural goods could be traded on an

international scale. By the second half of the 19th century, millions of food miles had already being

clocked up: the US was exporting cereals from its vast former grasslands from which millions of

buffalo and native North Americans had been cleared, and South America and Australia were

exporting refrigerated meat by the shipload.

The Wars and Since

----------------------------------

WW1 highlighted the fact that Britain had become dangerously dependent on imports to feed itself;

well over half the food the country consumed was imported in the early decades of last century. This

was clearly unsustainable in time of war, so the government launched a major drive to make British

farming more productive. Farmers were lauded as national heroes during both world wars, and in the

post-war world they seemed to be able to do no wrong, as yields increased year on year through the

miracle of chemical fertilizers and heavy machinery. By 1945, 3/4 of the food Britain consumed was

home-grown, thanks in part to the vastly increased the amount of land under arable cultivation.

Mechanization continued apace post-war, encouraged by generous state loans. In the 1940s, 90 of

cows were hand-milked. Y 1960 only 10 were. The emphasis of the government’s post-war agriculture

policy, expressed in the 1947 Agriculture Act, was on stability and efficiency. Agriculture would not be

left to chance and the market. Stability would come through guaranteeing prices an assuring farmers

there would be a market for their food. Efficiency would result from the widespread adoption of new

scientific methods of farming. In 1973 the UK took the momentous step of joining the EEC, which has

had a profound effect of food policy ever since. This is the era we are still living in today.

The Wars and Since

WW1 highlighted the fact that Britain had become dangerously dependent on imports to

feed itself; well over half the food the country consumed was imported in the early decades

of last century. This was clearly unsustainable in time of war, so the government launched a

major drive to make British farming more productive. Farmers were lauded as national heroes

during both world wars, and in the post-war world they seemed to be able to do no wrong,

as yields increased year on year through the miracle of chemical fertilizers and heavy machinery.

By 1945, 3/4 of the food Britain consumed was home-grown, thanks in part to the vastly

increased the amount of land under arable cultivation.

Mechanization continued apace post-war, encouraged by generous state loans. In the 1940s,

90 of cows were hand-milked. Y 1960 only 10 were. The emphasis of the government’s post-war

agriculture policy, expressed in the 1947 Agriculture Act, was on stability and efficiency.

Agriculture would not be left to chance and the market. Stability would come through guaranteeing

prices an assuring farmers there would be a market for their food. Efficiency would result from the

widespread adoption of new scientific methods of farming. In 1973 the UK took the momentous

step of joining the EEC, which has had a profound effect of food policy ever since. This is the era

we are still living in today.

All in the Soil

60 years ago, with memories of wartime food shortages still vivid, a new industrial approach

to agriculture was developed to create plentiful, affordable food for all. Traditional practices

of mixed farming and careful land management were pushed aside to make way for the new

chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which promised a high-yield, low-maintenance mono-culture

(single crop) method of farming.

The problem we face today is that half a century of intensive farming has robbed the soil of its

nutrients, leaving it in such a degraded state that soil erosion is now a major global problem,

reducing both the land fit for agriculture and crop yields. Globally, as we get richer we are eating

nearly our own body weight in meat each year, putting ever more pressure on the land to provide

the vast amounts of crops needed for animal feed.

Agricultural land is also under threat from a new pressure : the demand for bio-fuel crops. We are

at a crossroads with a variety of options before us, such as GM goods, meat reduction and organic

and low-input farming.

Soil is a vital part of the Earth’s structure and essential to our well-being. Without healthy soil we

would stave : nearly everything we eat either grows in soil or is fed on what grows in it. And almost

all vegetation relies on it for water and nutrients. But soil is extremely slow to replenish itself : it takes

between a hundred and a thousand years to form just one centimeter of new soil. Conversely, it can

be destroyed within a generation through unsustainable farming practices, climate change and other

human intervention such as building and pollution. Soil is therefore effectively a non-renewable

resource which needs protecting.

Science magazine has called soil one of the most complicated bio-materials on the planet, as it is a

composite of minerals (rock-weathering products many of them created by the last Ice Age) and

organic matter (decomposing plant material) as well as the product of complex interactions between

climate, geology, plants, biological activity, time and human action.

A top layer of humans contains most of the organic matter. Humans is the key to healthy soil and is

responsible for its capacity to retain a large percentage of water. The next layer down consists of

tiny particles of decayed leaves, twigs and animal remains. Insoluble minerals are also found here,

whereas soluble minerals are found in the subsequent layer as they leach down. Underpinning all this,

1-10m below the surface, is the bedrock. Humans and polysaccharide gums, produced by the soil’s

micro-organisms, glue soil particles together to resist erosion and form the soil’s crumb structure.

It is the aerated nature of soil which allows roots to penetrate it and plants to grow.

It’s a Bug’s Life.

There are around 5 billion living organisms in just one teaspoonful of healthy soil and 10,000

different species. Bacteria’s function centres around the metabolic processes within the soil.

Fungi break down most of the organic matter and in some cases also help the uptake of

nutrients into plant roots. Micro-organisms are essential to soil function : they create structure,

convert organic matter into humus, protect against erosion and aid water retention, drainage,

aeration and compaction resistance. Larger soil life includes the familiar earthworms. There are

25 species f earthworms in Britain and they can live up to years. During this time they eat their

way through enormous amounts of soil each day to create a network of pres, which helps

drainage and aeration. Other soil life such as mites and beetles break u organic matter and help

recycle nutrients — working with the microscopic protozoa and nematodes to feed off the

bacteria and fungi and in doing releasing nitrogen and minerals back into the soil for plant use.

The biological life of soil is responsible for its fertility. It releases minerals from the sub-soil, fixes

atmospheric nutrients into the soil and transports nutrients directly to plant roots. But all this is

threatened by the barrage of fertilizers and pesticides which we’ve been pouring onto the soil

over the last 50 years. Inorganic fertilizer suppresses soil life, unlike organic matter, killing off

bacteria and fungi, disrupting the delicate balance of soil life and leaving it less fertile. This in turn

encourages the increased use of chemicals to encourage plant growth in compromised soil.

When Soil gets Sick

A fertile soil with plenty of microbial life is capable of supplying all our mineral needs.

Intensive farming has severely depleted soil life and its mineral content : nutrient levels

in soil fell dramatically between 1940 and 1991 to the extent that fruit and vegetable

mineral levels are now 15—76% lower than in 1940. This has implications for our health,

too ; our bodies need a regular supply of 7 key macro-minerals : calcium, chloride,

magnesium, phosphorus., potassium, sodium, and sulphur for good health (plus a

range of trace minerals including boron, cobalt, copper, chromium, iodine, iron,

manganese, selenium and zinc).

In 2001 the European Commission indicated that soil loss and declining soil fertility were

a major threat to sustainable development, becoz they diminish the viability of agricultural

land. It has been estimated that 52 million hectares of land in the EU (16% of the total land area)

are affected by soil degradation. Soil problems have global consequences for food security,

poverty reduction, water protection and biodiversity. Soil degradation has often been cited as

the most frequent cause of cultural decline and total civilization collapse in the past. Today,

with well over six-and-a-half billion inhabitants on Earth, the consequences of inaction are

likely to be felt globally. Here are the warning signs of sick soil :

1) Compaction reduces the pore between soil particles, diminishing its capacity to absorb

    water and air.. This is caused by the use of heavy machinery, or dense stocking rates typical

    in intensive farming, which subject soils to extensive pressure. Compaction alone can

    drastically reduce crop yields.

2) Reduced biodiversity can have drastic consequences for soil fertility, as many of the key

    process underpinning these functions depend on soil life.

3) Loss of organic matter adversely affects key soil functions and fertility. A Swiss trial found

    organic land had much greater levels of soil microbial mass and soil particle stability. The

    European Soil Bureau estimates that 75% of southern Europe is at pre-desertification stage.

4) Erosion is the final stage of soil degradation. A recent UK government survey suggests that

    44% of arable land is prone to erosion . Soil has always been eroded by wind and water, but

    human activity has greatly accelerated post-war to the point that is it a serious threat to food

    production worldwide. In China and India combined, more than twelve million square kilometres

    have been severely eroded since 1945 through deforestation, overgrazing and farming. In parts

    of the Mediterranean, the erosion rate is as high as 20cm per century and in Africa it’s up to 2m

    per century.

The Coming of the Chemicals

Nitrogen makes up 78% of the air we breathe. It is also a key element in plant growth,

since nitrogen is a component of chlorophyll , which is vital to photosynthesis. Air-borne

nitrogen requires “fixing” in the soil through certain plants which are able to extract it,

such as alfalfa, clover, beans and peas.

Historically, farmers returned nitrogen to the soil through rotting organic matter, or else

(less ecologically sound) they abandoned exhausted fields for newly cleared tracts with

higher nitrogen levels. In the late 19th century, supplements in the form of sodium nitrate

from Chilean mines were shipped to Europe for use in both agriculture and munitions. But

these sources were finite. A British chemist, Sir William Crookes, warned in 1898 “we are

drawing on the Earth’s capital, and our drafts will not perpetually be honoured.” In other

words, food shortages loomed for the growing populations of the industrialized west.

A world-changing breakthrough came in 1909 when German chemist, Fritz Haber combined

hydrogen and nitrogen in high-temperature, high-pressure conditions. Through this process

he successfully created ammonia, which could be converted into fertilizers in the form of a

soluble salt which farmers could spread on their land. Ammonium nitrate’s explosive

properties also boosted the German armaments industry in WW1.

The so-called Haber-Bosch process has been described as the most important invention of

the 12th century. As if by magic, harvests could be increased 4-fold. When China foresaw a

food crisis in the 1970s, for example, it responded by building vast ammonium nitrate plants.

China’s economic miracle owes a debt to the Haber-Bosch process. In fact, without Haber’s

process the Earth would be able to sustain 2 billion fewer people. In other words. Around

one-third of human life today owes its existence to Fritz Haber.

Nitrogen: Solution or Problem??

“Bread from air” was the boast at the start of last century when nitrates were first

synthesized. One big biochemical company today calls it “truly a superstar of food

production”. While it is undoubtedly true that nitrogen fertilizers have boosted

harvests, the extra food comes at a price :

1) Nitrogen fertilizers have been criticized for producing plants that are poor in

    nutrients, prone to disease and therefore need more pesticide treatment.

2) When nitrogen fertilizer is introduced into the soil, microbes have to work hard to

    break it down. They need energy in order to do this, and obtain that energy from the

    available soil organic matter or humus. This leads ultimately to a “burning out of the soil”.

3) Nitrogen fertilizers contribute to soil degradation and water pollution. Defra (the

     Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has identified high levels of

     nitrates in water, much of which comes from agricultural land in the form of “run-off”.

4) Over time, nitrogen residues can have a devastating effect on the environment. They

     can cause algaes to bloom in lakes and suffocate fish; they combine with water in the

     atmosphere and fall back to Earth as acid rain; and damage ecosystems.

5) The world is suffering a nitrogen imbalance : most of the northern hemisphere has

     too much nitrogen and Africa’s soil is severely depleted.

Pesticides

The Hidden Extras on your Plate

“Pesticide” is a catch-all terms for the vast array of chemicals that are available to farmers,

including weed-killers, fungicides and seed treatments. Around the world an estimated

3 billion kilogrammes of pesticides are sprayed on crops each year, much of it to meet

supermarkets’ demand for cosmetically perfect produce. Pesticide production is big

business ($32 billion in 2006) and the industry is dominated by multinational chemical

giants such as BASF, BAYER, DuPont and Monsanto. They have vast research and marketing

budgets, and keen interest in promoting GM crops.

Chemical pesticides have been in widespread use only since the end of WW2. Post-war,

as part of the drive to increase domestic food production, the chemical companies were

given free rein by governments to bring new products to market, and regulation of the

industry’s impact on human health in the UK remained by voluntary agreement until 1986.

What’s Your Poison?

Non-organic UK farmers currently have access to over 350 pesticides. In 2006, arable crops

in the UK were treated with nearly 20000 tones of pesticides. By the time it is harvested, the

average wheat crop will have received 3 applications of weed-killer, 3 of fungicide and one

each of growth regulator and insecticide. Fruit crops can receive many more sprayings than

that. Treatments are also given to crops after they are harvested in order to prolong their life

and prevent damage by pests while in storage. All the while, pesticide resistance is rising

alarmingly, leading, manufacturers to increase the toxicity of the chemicals they sell.

The Impact of Pesticides

The sheer ubiquity of artificial chemicals in the environment and our food makes it difficult to

isolate particular effects on our health. But as scientists learn more about the toxicity of

pesticides more questions are being raised about their safety.

1) Fatalities and poisonings == The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates there are

220,000 pesticide-related deaths and up to 26 million direct poisonings worldwide each year,

many the result of inadequate training or safety regimes in developing countries. Closer to

home, there is growing evidence of health problems suffered by those who live near

agricultural land treated with pesticides.

2) Persistent Organic Pollutants == These are some of the most pernicious chemical

substances ever created, including DDT, dioxins, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and

Chlordane (traces of DDT have been found in polar bears). They have been linked to

cancers and birth abnormalities. An international treaty banned twelve POPs in 2003

(the “dirty dozen”) but they continue to pose a threat to people and wildlife because

POPs accumulate in the food we eat. They remain in the body’s fatty tissue and

"bio-magnify”, which means they become more pronounced the higher up the food

chain they go.

3) Pesticide Residues in Food === Pesticide srays leave residues in our food. Residues

have been detected in up to 30% of food tested in the UK. Washing and peeling can help

in the case of fruit and vegetables, but traces of up to 8 different pesticides have been

found on single pieces of fruit, such as grapes and pears, for sale in the UK. Pesticides

have been linked to a host of diseases and ailments, from allergies to cancers.

4) Killers by Design == Pesticides have been carefully designed by scientists to disrupt

nervous and reproductive systems of insects; the problem is they may also harm humans

too. There are a great many unknowns regarding the effects of these chemicals on humans.

Pesticides have been linked to rising male fertility. A 2005 Washington State University study

exposed pregnant rats to fungicides and pesticides. Their subsequent male offspring had a

sperm count reduced by 20%; these effects were passed onto the majority of subsequent

generations. Dr. Michael Skinner, who led the research team , said : “The hazards of

environment toxins are much more pronounced that we realized.”

Testing for Pesticides

The Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) is the body entrusted by the UK government with

testing food for chemical contamination. The PRC tests a range of everyday foods every

quarter and publishes its findings, but it has come under fire in the past for not taking action

quickly enough when the Maximum Residue Level (MRL) have been exceeded and for testing

too few samples to give a true picture of the extent of residues in food. The committee tends

to return a “no cause for concern” verdict, even when samples exceed the MRL or multiple

pesticide traces are found in a single sample.

The battle over the significance of chemical residues is a fierce one, as it relates directly to

people’s attitude to intensive large-scale agriculture. Reasons range from treating residues

as an irrelevance to human health to treating them as a potential time bomb, since we are all

building up a store of a wide variety of chemicals in our bodies.

The chemical industry is large and powerful and is able to counter objections to particular

pesticides with new, improved formulas. And the pesticide testing bodies have no resources

to test for all chemicals or the combined effect of pesticides in the human body. Pesticides

which share the same “toxicological mode of action” might be expected to have a compound

effect in the body, but it has been calculated that even to test for the potential effects of all

combinations of 2 dozen common chemicals would cost $3 trillion. At least you can be sure of

one thing: organic samples are residue-free. 

DDT : An Early Environment Victory

DDT was the first synthetic pesticides of the modern age. Used first against mosquitoes to

combat malaria, its often indiscriminate agricultural use took off after World War 2. US biologist

Rachel Carson was appalled by the poison’s effect on the environment, especially wildlife, and

in 1962 published Silent Spring, a book which provided a powerful impetus for the fledgling

environmental movement. Carson’s book tapped into public distrust of sprayed chemicals to

such an extent that Time magazine called Carson one of the hundred most influential people of

the 20th century. The book led to the banning of the agricultural use of DDT in the US in 1972, the

first major victory for US environmental campaigners . (Britain waited till 1984 to implement a ban).

However, DDT has a half-life of up to 15 years, which means traces of it are still in the soil and are

still being found. Most of us have DDT residues stored in our body fat. Links to cancer are claimed

but not conclusively proven, but the WHO rates it as “moderately hazardous.”

From Sheep Dip to Gulf War Syndrome

Organophosphate pesticides have been in widespread use since the 1960s (for example in sheep dip)

and currently account for 38% of all pesticides worldwide. They are also among the most controversial.

The WHO describes their effects : “Organophosphates inhibit the destruction of the neurotransmitter

such as that the neurons are constantly being stimulated and the message is repeatedly transmitted

from one neuron to the next...Organophosphates can cause change in heart rate, tremors, muscle

weakness or paralysis, restlessness, mental confusion, loss of memory, convulsions and coma.”

A 1951 report recommending they be labeled “deadly poison” was ignored for a quarter of a century.

In the 1980s and 90s farm workers who had been exposed to low levels of organophosphates over a

long period began reporting symptoms similar to those in the WHO list. The UK government has

commissioned research into their effects, but maintains that organophosphates are safe. (When the

government withdraws a pesticide licence, it becomes liable for substantial compensation claims

from the manufacturer.) Organophosphates nerve gas is also the suspected cause of Gulf War syndrome.

Farming Today

It’s telling that when the industry magazine, Farmers Weekly, chose the to 20 influential people

in UK agriculture , number one sot went not to British or international politician but to Tesco

boss Sir Terry Leahy. The magazine dubbed him “the man farmers love to hate”, but given that

Tesco controls 30% of the grocery market in Britain , Leahy is the man the majority of farmers

have to please. Farmers find themselves caught between retailers who are unwilling to pass on

rising production costs to their customers and a public who are ever more concerned about

food quality, provenance, the environment and animal welfare, but still hooked on cheap food.

When farmers look to the future and express guarded optimism it is generally because of the

growing demand for food due to rising world population and the new market for bio-fuels.

EU farm subsidy policy may not be high on anyone’s list of riveting reading, but it has had a

profound effect on the state of agriculture ,so here is just as much as you need to know :

subsidies for agriculture were art of the EEC (as was then called) right from the start France

wouldn’t let Germany have access to its markets for industrial goods without an agreement

on farm prices to protect French agriculture. From the early 1960s, the Common Agriculture

Policy (CAP) developed into a many-tentacle beast that affected all aspects of European food

production.

Under the Cap, farmers were encouraged to grow certain crops through guarantees of a

minimum level of payment for them. At the same time, imports from outside the EU were

subject to tariffs and quotas, which penalized farmers from other parts of the world. The

result was overproduction of basic commodities in the 1970s and 80s, the infamous butter

mountains and wine lakes. The EU’s answer to paying farmers to grow too much was

“ser-aside”, in other words, paying them not to grow so much.

The CA has devoured a vast proportion of the EU’s (vast) total budget (up to 61%). It still

accounts for 40% of the budget (Pound$5 billion per annum) and the fact that France has

taken the lion’s share year after year has fuelled the wrath of many a British Eurosceptic.

The CAP has been subject to fierce criticism throughout its life —- for distorting the market,

for penalizing farmers in the developing world through import tariffs and rewarding the big

players over the small. (And the EU also still subsidies tobacco farming to the tune of one-third

of a billion euros a year.) In the US, agricultural policy has followed a similar pattern.

When it comes to harvesting healthy Euro-subsidies, it has always helped to be a big player. It’s

reckoned that 80% of the cash available goes to just 20% of the EU’s farmers. Some large farms

and estates qualify for annual awards well over $ 1 million pound. The Co-op Group, which owns

the UK’s biggest commercial farm groups, Farmcare Ltd., got $2.4 million pound in 2008. The

Queen had to make do with $400,000 pound for her Sandringham Estates.

Recent reforms have “decoupled” subsidies from production, Eurospeak for offering a payment

according to size and environmental stewardship of the land rather than output. Such things as

food safety and animal welfare are also parts of the deal. While some parts of the CA have yet to

be reformed, the main shift is towards viewing funds as contributing to the rural economy in its

broadest sense, rather just to the production of commodities.

The UK and most other EU governments have been very reluctant to divulge who has benefited

most from EU subsidies, but freedom of information legislation means that there should soon

be much more detail available about how much multinational food giants such as Tate and Lyle

and Nestle and members of the royal family have gained from subsidies.

The Organic Alternative

There is a good deal of confusion over what organic agriculture actually is. Most people think

of it more in terms of what it doesn’t do (use pesticides or chemical fertilizers) rather than

what it does. Just as the term “conventional farming” is very broad, organic is also a broad

church (including , for example, biodynamic growers who plant according to the phases of

the moon). A more generally agreed set of aims and principles, though, is set out by the

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

01) To produce sufficient quantities of high-quality food, fibre and other products.

02) To work compatibly with natural cycles and living systems through the soil, plants

        and animals in the entire production system.

03) To organize the wider social and ecological impact of the organic system.

04) To maintain and increase long-term fertility and biological activity of soils without

        reliance on chemical inputs.

05) To maintain and encourage biodiversity through the use of sustainable production

         systems and the protection of wildlife habitats.

06) To maintain and conserve genetic diversity.

07) To promote the responsible use and conservation of water and aquatic life.

08) To use , as far as possible, renewable resources and avoid pollution and waste.

09) To foster local and regional production and distribution.

10) To create a harmonious balance between crop production and animal husbandry.

11) To provide living conditions that allows animals to express the basic aspects of their

       innate behavior.

12) To use biodegradable, recyclable and recycled packaging.

13) To provide everyone involved in organic farming and processing with a quality of life that

        satisfies their basic needs, within a safe, secure and healthy working environment.

14) To support the establishment of a production, processing and distribution chain which is

       socially just and ecologically responsible.

15) To recognize the importance of, and protect and learn from, indigenous knowledge and

        traditional farming systems.

It takes at least 2 years for a farm to qualify as organic, during which time it is said to be “in conversion”/

( Food labeled as “ in conversion” is not fully organic, but on its way, and therefore tends to cost more

than conventionally grown produce.) At present , 3.5% of agricultural land in the UK is organic or in

conversion. Most of it is pasture or woodland. The areas with the highest percentage of organic land are

the South West and Wales, which unsurprisingly is where most of the organic meat comes from.

In 1984 there were fewer than 3 hundred organic farms in the UK and the retail value of organic products

was estimated at around $1 million pound. By the end of 2004 there were over 4,300 organic farms UK,

the market for organic food in the UK was the third largest in the world with over$1 billion pound in retail

sales. Now it is rapidly heading towards $2 billion pound.

Defra has a plan to encourage organic food production with the aim that UK producers will be able to

supply at least 70% of the domestic organic market with indigenous products by 2010. When the plan

was published in 2002, only one-third of all organic products consumed here was hoe-produced .

By 200, the Soil Association estimated that figure had risen to two-thirds.

External forces may put a brake on the growth of organic farming, however. While prices for

conventionally grown wheat remain high, the incentive to put land into conversion may be weak. 

Likewise, bio-fuel crops are attracting farmers. At the same time, rising grain prices push up the

production cost of organic meat, since organic animals must be fed almost exclusively on organic fee.

(When organic feedstuffs are in short supply, Defra permits pigs and poultry to be fed up to 10%

non-organic feed, though this has to be reduced to 5% from January 2010.)

Horticulture

Whereas there are only a handful of main cereal crops grown in the UK, horticulture is much more

diverse agricultural sector, embracing many different crops in the 3 major areas of salad, field

vegetables and fruit : as many as3 hundred major and 3thousand minor horticultural products are

estimated to be grown in the UK. Many farmers have turned away from common vegetables such

as beans, peas, and sprouts, as the profit margins are so slim; in the past decade the percentage

of British land devoted to vegetable growing has shrunk by around one-quarter and with it the UK’s

veg self-sufficiency has gone from 71% to 60% (fruit has remained static at 11). The only areas which

seem to be holding up strongly are the country’s favourite vegetable, the carrot (In UK, 10 billion of

are being consumed a year ), and asparagus, which has a short season.

Naturally, horticulture is a seasonal industry, which means it is highly dependent on casual labour,

much of which comes from Eastern Europe. “Were there not migrant workers in food and agriculture,”

according to union leader Jack Dromey, “food and agriculture would be in very serious difficulty.” But

it’s not a sector with a good track record for the treatment of its employees. Farmers , who keep their

permanent staff levels to a minimum, depend on so-called gang-masters to recruit and supply the

casual workers who harvest, sort and pack their fruit and vegetables.

Some migrant workers in the UK have reported shocking abuses of their rights, such as instances of

wages being withheld, summary dismissals and appalling living conditions. Some commentators, such

as Felicity Lawrence in her book “NOT ON THE LABEL”, have compared its worst excesses to a form of

modern-day slavery. Supermarkets, meanwhile, have tended to look the other way until abuses are

splashed all over the front cover of newspapers. The unfortunate reality for the industry is that it is the

supermarket’s relentless pressure to drive costs down which gives rise to thee labour practices in the

first place.

It was the drowning of 23 Chinese cockle-pickers in Morecambe Bay in 2004 that led the government

to crack down on gang-masters and introduce a licensing authority with the power to put the worst

offenders throughout the agricultural and fisheries industries out of business.

Livestock

As a species we are consuming more meat than ever before : world per capita meant consumption has

doubled since the 1960s and, on current projections, by 2050 it will have doubled again. Throughout

most of human history it was very different; the majority of people were peasants and the bulk of their

diets were made up of staple grains. But meat has a long association with affluence; as western societies

have become wealthier since the war, they have spent ever more on meat, and now developing nations

with more disposable income are catching up fast. Their diets are changing to resemble that of the west,

which means more meat (especially chicken and pork ), dairy and eggs. Worldwide, average meat

consumption is currently around a quarter pound per person per day, though Americans chomp their

way through twice that much.

In the developed world, meanwhile, after health warnings about the dangers of eating too much red

meat, our appetite for meat seems to be leveling off. In the last 25 years demand for beef and lamb

has declined, but there has been a jump in demand for chicken worldwide. Meat-eating remains

woven into our lives socially and economically. One person in 5 on earth is engaged in some way with

livestock, and production is increasingly taking place on vat industrial-scale farms, especially in

south-east Asia and South America.

Our growing carnivorousness has a massive environmental impact : to produce the 52 billion animals

the world’s population eats each year, we already use 30% OF THE EARTH’S ICE-FREE LAND.

Cattle convert calories in their feed into calories in their flesh at a ratio as poor as 10 to 1 ( 10 kilos of

feed to produce one kilo of meat ). So one-third of the global grain harvest now goes into animal feed ,

and animals now consume far more protein edible by humans in the form of grains than they provide.

Not only is livestock production resource-intensive, it also plays a major role in greenhouse gas

emissions and environmental degradation. Nearly one-fifth of total greenhouse gas emissions

are due to livestock production, and livestock account for four-fifths of total agricultural emissions.

A report in 2006 by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock’s Long Shadow, reckoned

that the livestock industry’s effect on climate, the environment and biodiversity was “truly enormous”.

It calculated, for example. That animal waste was probably the largest cause of water pollution in the

developing world and a large contributor of greenhouse gases than all road transport. Methane gas,

which ruminants such as cattle and sheep emit as part of their digestive process, is 21 times more

potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Losing Touch with Our Food

In the past we lived in much closer proximity to animals, often under the same roof in so-called

“long houses”. Animals were a necessary part of everyday life. Ruminants, thanks to their double

stomachs, were able to access the energy in cellulose in grass and hay, which other animals could

not, and they —along with pigs, which acted as waste disposal units —- provided vital fertility for

the soil in the form of dung. Wandering pigs were a familiar hazard in towns for centuries and

keeping animals was a normal part of most people’s experience until after WW2.

That close connection has been progressively lost in recent decades, to the extent that many

children now have difficulty telling which animal a pork chop or a beef-burger comes from,

though admittedly some meat products disguise their origins so skillfully, only scientific analysis

could reveal the truth. More worryingly, certain Southern states in the USA object to farm animals

being classified as sentient beings and prefer to categorize them as “agricultural goods”. ( In EU,

farm animals have been recognized as sentient beings, but only since 1997).

With such huge demand for meat products, it’s perhaps unsurprising that much livestock production

has become an industrial process that turn out standardized unit. The trend has been towards selective

breeding and confinement to make the management of animals easier and cheaper. Livestock production

is increasingly in the hands of the ever more powerful breeders, most of whom are closely linked to the

agro-industrial giants and who provide the “genetic material” for the growers.

Since the longer you have to feed an animal before it reaches its slaughter weight, the more it costs, the

emphasis has been on shortening the fattening up time. Like a couch potato, an animal that is confined

and has nothing to do but eat gains weight more rapidly than one which is roaming around a farm. And,

like a body-builder, its feed can be supplemented with growth hormones. 2 generations ago, cattle would

have been slaughtered at 4 to 5 years. A generation ago that had dropped to 2 to 3 years. Today, thanks to

their grain-and-drug-enriched diet, they don’t live beyond about 16 months.

All this means , of course, profound changes to animals’ natural environmental and behavior. Intensive

farming leads to a host of problems : crowding, which makes animals more prone to disease and fighting;

confinement, which stresses animals and alters their behavior; and selective breeding, which can further

strain animals’ physiology. One-third of chickens, overwhelmed by the weight of their rapidly expanding

bodies, which are selectively bred to maximize the development of profitable breast meat, become lame

before they are slaughtered.