'Organic farming may counter climate change,' report says

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, The Independent UK

Organic farming can play an important role in countering climate change, a new report suggests today.

Use of organic methods means that the soil takes up much more carbon, which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide to boost global warming, according to the report from the Soil Association, the organic food and farming charity.

Soil is a major store of carbon, the report says, containing three times as much as the atmosphere and five times as much as forests. About 60 per cent of this is in the form of organic matter in the soil. On average, organic farming produces 28 per cent higher levels of soil carbon compared to non-organic farming in northern Europe, according to the report, and 20 per cent higher for all countries studied (in Europe, North America and Australasia).

The report suggests that widespread adoption of organic farming practices would offset 23 per cent of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture through soil carbon sequestration alone, more than doubling the Government's target of a 6-11 per cent reduction by 2020.

If all UK farmland were converted to organic, the report says, at least 3.2 million tonnes of carbon would be taken up by the soil each year – the equivalent of taking nearly 1 million cars off the road.


The following comments and more can be found at
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/organic-farming-may-counter-climate-change-report-says-1827624.html

(Thursday, 26 November 2009 at 12:28 am (UTC) That seems like a really good idea. If we switch over to all organic food we will be able to produce half as much food at twice the price. That in turn will cause mass starvation and a large reduction in the human population. Result, a huge reduction in CO2 emissions. Who would have thought that such unrecognised geniuses were hidden in the Soil Association all this time?
Thursday, 26 November 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC) Whilst non organic food is cheaper, that is because it privatises profit and socialises risk and externalises environmental costs. A widescale shift to organic methods, whilst challenging, is clearly the properly modern solution.
Thursday, 26 November 2009 at 03:23 pm (UTC) Trouble is, guys, when the demand for oil outpaces supply, the Haber Bosch process - credited with having made the population expolsion since the 1950s possible - may need replacing by something less dependant on oil."According to farm scientists at Cornell University, cultivating one hectare of maize in the United States requires 40 litres of petrol and 75 litres of diesel. "

Climate Conference 2009
Read all about the UN ClimateChange Conference 2009 here!
www.cop15.dk
Kamalesh Sharma: Here's what we need from Copenhagen

Science of the Organism & Sustainable Systems

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Invited lecture, The Alternative View, 13-15 November, Grand Thistle Hotel, Bristol, UK

Abstract

Genetic engineering is the epitome of mechanistic biology, part and parcel of the dominant model of the world as machine that was becoming obsolete since the turn of the last century when the new science of the organism emerged with quantum theory.

The dominant neo-liberal economy of infinite unsustainable growth has brought the earth to the brink of irreversible climate catastrophe. It is driven by competition, profligate dissipation and waste. In contrast, nature’s circular economy (thermodynamics) of balanced sustainable growth is based on reciprocity and cooperation, which enables energy and material resources to be recycled while minimizing waste and dissipation. Nature’s economy applies most clearly to the highly productive agro-ecology systems innovated by farmers, or perfected over millennia.

We have all the appropriate science and technologies, abundant human creativity, and local initiatives that will enable us to exit the multiple crises of food, fuel and finance. The major stumbling block is our political leaders’ overwhelming adherence to the obsolete mechanistic model.

The complete text of this lecture with references and richly illustrated power point presentation are available for download.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/lectures.php#289

ISIS Press Release 16/11/09

Why Bees Vanish

A film that tries to get to the bottom of the mystery of the disappearing bees with some success
Sam Burcher

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS member’s website. Membership details can be found here
It is also available for download from our online bookstore here

The Vanishing of the Bees [1] is the cinematic equivalent of “Watch with Mother” about the importance to the planet of the honeybee. It patiently unravels the mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) impl icated in the mass disappearance of honeybees from their hives across the world. Bees have one of the most important jobs in nature. Without their busy pollination of plants and flowers we would lose one in every three bites of the food that we eat (see Box 1).

Bees are big business, and their industry, worth billions of dollars, is teetering on the brink of collapse. In the USA , commercial beekeepers transport hives around the country so that the bees can pollinate apples, blueberries, cranberries, raspberries, oranges and pumpkins. The annual Californian almond bloom demands almost all the commercial bees to pollinate the nut harvest. Since CCD has decimated the native bee population , the importation of bees from Australia to pollinate food crops has become the norm.

The prime suspect in CCD is the introduction of a relatively new class of pesticides called neonicotinoids [6] (see Mystery of Disappearing Honeybees SiS 34 ). Neonicotinoids are systemic pesticides that remain in the leaves, pollen and nectar throughout the plants lifecycle. The link to CCD was first noticed in France where honeybee losses were observed and honey production dropped from 40 000 to 25 000 tons between the years 1995-2001. These events occurred after a particular neonicotinoid called imidacloprid was applied as a seed dressing to sunflower crops [7] (see Requiem for the Honeybee SiS 34).

Big Pharma plays a big part in bee decline

Bayer CropScience, the manufacturer of neonicotinoids with silly names such as “Gaucho” and “Poncho” say that imidacloprid is safe. Despite this, Gaucho is now banned in Italy , France , Germany and Slovenia, but not in the USA , Canada, or the UK . In 2008, the American Beekeepers Federation officially refuted bad beekeeping practices being blamed for the decline of the honeybee by bringing a civil law suit against Bayer, which is still ongoing.

They are not alone. A German organization called Coalition against Bayer Dangers is suing the company for marketing dangerous pesticides and thereby causing the mass death of bees all over the world [8]. An annual turnover of nearly 800 million Euros makes neonicotinoids one of Bayer's most important products. "This is the reason why Bayer, despite serious environmental damage, is fighting against any prohibitions ," says Coalition spokesman Philipp Mimkes.

Bayer AG, the parent company of Bayer CropScience is responsible for the development of the drug heroin (diacetylmorphine) which was sold as an over the counter cough medicine under the Bayer trademark up until World War I [9].

Concern about the relationship between the chemical corporations and the environmental agencies is described in the film as, “The fox guarding the hen house.” For example, the only scientific research submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the safety of neonicotinoid sprays was done by Bayer's own toxicologist. This research took the form of a three day trial of imidocloprid, which was fed to the bees in a sugar solution. No tests were required on the bee brood in its developmental stage, or on the pollen, or on honey, and the results of the feeding trial were revealed at Bayer's discretion.

Plenty of pesticides inside CCD beehives

However, a raft of independent scientific studies done by Maryann Frazier at the Penn State University on samples taken from beehives with CCD found that the bees were exposed to as many as 46 different pesticides [10]. Further tests done at Penn on 108 pollen samples revealed an average of 5 pesticides and as many as 17 pesticides per pollen sample. This accumulation of toxins is caused by a complex synergy of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides which, combined with the industrial agricultural practice of monocultures, spells disaster for bees. Monocultures affect the amount and diversity of food available to bees, and pesticides interfere with their ability to navigate home to the hive.

This film makes explicit connections between the chemical companies that supplied the nerve gases designed to maim and kill soldiers during both World Wars and the pesticides developed from them that cause sub-lethal damage to insects in agriculture today. In addition, frightening archive footage shows the busy streets of San Antonio in Texas blanket sprayed with thick clouds of DDT to combat a polio epidemic in 1946. This spraying was part of a wider advertising campaign by the chemical industry that showed cartoon children, farmyard animals, domestic pets, fruits and vegetables singing “DTT is good for me-e-e!”

We see the strange practice of decapitating the queen bees in commercial hives and replacing them with a surrogate queen that has been artificially inseminated. This new queen is introduced gradually to the hive and is supposed to keep production levels high. A subsidiary of another big chemical company called Syngenta Bioline has recently funded research into breeding bees in captivity instead of looking for damage caused by pesticides [11]. Expanding the commercialisation of factory farmed bees pose a variety of risks to wild bees. Son Tufnell, head of the Strategic Communications Team of the UK Chemicals Regulations Directorate, says that the findings of an investigation by The National Bee Unit revealed that most significant threat to the health or mortality of bees is the nosema parasite which is implicated in CCD [12].

Bees and genetically engineered plants

A recent investigation of honeybee colonies infected with the parasite nosema [13] (see Parasitic Fungus and Honeybee Decline ) and fed with Monsanto's GM maize MON810 pollen collapsed much earlier than bee colonies fed with conventional maize pollen did [12]. A further concern was that when microorganisms were cultivated with the GM pollen it was found that those microorganisms had taken up the pat gene. In other words, that horizontal gene transfer had occurred [14] (see Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen ). Th at is something the pro-GM lobby swear could never happen. The lead researcher in the honeybee study Prof Dr Hans-Hinrich Kaatz of the University of Halle-Wittenburg was later informed by a German TV Company ZDF that someone at Monsanto had told them his research article on MON810 pollen submitted to Nature had been rejected. This raises questions of bias in favour of the chemical industry on the part of the mainstream journal as well as regulatory bodies responsible for protecting public health.

According to David Taylor, Labour and Co-operative MP for North West Leicestershire an American scientific report on Syngenta's neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamexotham, shows that it is deadly to honeybees. Therefore, he asked Dan Norris the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the following question: “Does the Minister think that the Warwick university research into bee and pollinator morbidity, which is being funded by Syngenta, will have sufficiently wide terms of reference to assess any links that exist between neonicotinoids and the collapse of UK bee colonies? Dan Norris gave this rather furtive answer in response to Taylor's question during oral questions on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 29 October 2009 [15]: “There is no evidence that authorised pesticides pose an unacceptable risk. However, I understand why my Honorable Friend asks his question: where somebody is paying, one questions whether the research will be reflective of scientific rigour or not.”

Listen to what the bee knows

The Vanishing of the Bees warns that if our favourite foods and flowers such as broccoli, cherries, onions, melons, cucumbers and sunflowers do not get pollinated our diets will consist of lots of rice, wheat and corn, which coincidentally are the main crops that Bayer and Syngenta have huge financial stakes in. It can be no coincidence that the commercial bee keepers who isolated their hives from the crops being sprayed with chemicals have reported no bee losses. Similarly, the organic and biodynamic beekeepers who work on diversified systems of food production and improving the immune systems of their bees have not suffered CCD in their hives.

What the honeybee knows is how to live successfully on the planet for 20 million years before the arrival of humans up until this point in time. Bees are the ultimate selfless workers that have provided mankind with the miracle of honey; the full implications of its contribution to medicine are still emerging [16]. (see Don't Let Biopiracy Spoil Revitalisation of Indigenous Health Systems/ Honey Beats Superbugs ). In addition, the current collapse of world economies and the lost civilizations of history may be mirrored in the complex causes connected to CCD. Therefore, the disappearance of the honeybee carries an important message for humanity as long as we all listen carefully.

How can we humans help?

So how can we humans help the honeybee everyday? Apart from working to ban indiscriminate spraying of pesticides and promoting organic agriculture [17] ( To Bee Organic or not to Bee , SiS 39), we can plant native flowers, trees and shrubs in our gardens that are bee friendly. We can learn about beekeeping and get hives going in our own back yards. We can grow, buy and eat food that supports local, organic and small scale agricultural practices and producers. When we take care of the honeybee, we take care of ourselves. Our lives depend on it.