Industrialised Agriculture and the Power nexus…the year that was this year.

Industrial Agriculture is a reality not likely to disappear or slow in growth - in terms of participation and economics - in the near future. When considering the evolution of Industrialised Agriculture it becomes clear that it is a phenomenon derived from humanity’s inexorable desire to maintain a framework through which an ideology can be sustained; Industrial Agriculture is another Human endeavour born of humanity’s power nexus. Looking at the problem like this, it becomes apparent that the ills of Industrial Agriculture are not pre-meditated – but rather they are side effects of a treatment prescribed to attain goals that account not for any negative externalities.

It has been written ‘For things to stay the same, things must change’. This rings true when considering the irreversible environmental, social and cultural degradation Industrial Farming has caused over the past fifty years in the name of ‘progress’ maintenance. Many say this is ludicrous and demand a stop to it – but the problem lies in that we have failed to understand what those who drive current Human endeavour deem as progress. Industrial Agriculture is pro-sustainability orientated; it is pursued in order to sustain power – and that is all the progress desired. Lets define power as being liken to that of the relationship an Industrialised egg producer has with a battery hen; power being the ability to define the limitations of that being’s (the hen’s) existence. Industrialised Farming not only gives us plenty of examples of this relationship (and the wielder’s varying degrees and uses of this power) but it also allows one to illustrate how power is used to limit and define the boundaries of our own existence in the broader context of our lives. Like that hen, we too are governed by the powers that be – restricted and subdued to conform to lifestyles agreeable for the perpetuation of the vessels of power.

Stepping back from the subversion of humanity for the maintenance of power, Industrial Farming provides us with a slightly easier example with which to try and comprehend this life. Though the institutions, individuals and protagonists involved with Industrial Agriculture have mandates that overlap with each other as well as other industries – there is a core group of parties driving Industrial Agriculture. I see the principle players as Corporations (Banks, Pharmaceuticals, Insurance, Retailers and Media), Governments (including Government funded Agri-Bodies, Advice institutions and Judicial bodies), Academics (broadly scientists and Economists) and some NGO’s. To a lesser degree individual farmers may be included with these groups, though it is increasingly evident that ‘farmers’ are not needed for the implementation of Industrialised Farming. These groups interlink and co-exist in their own commercial ‘ecosystem’ – commonly known as an Economy, but, using their own definitions, rather better described as a fraud. Their sole purpose is the perpetuation of their respective campaigns to acquire wealth through the exhaustion or appropriation of the resources at their disposal. Therefore, for Industrial Agriculture to claim its purpose lies in alleviating World hunger or increasing food standards or stabilizing wealth distribution is a mislead.

Industrial Agriculture is, like most modern human endeavour, economically motivated. What differentiates it from Alternative Agriculture is that Economics is its sole motivation. Within the industry economic success is the measure by which power can be marked. And because wealth, via economic growth, is perceived by society as the measure of development, Industrial Agriculture continues to thrive. As an industry, Agriculture had no direction to take other than that of heightened industrialisation. If economic success was and is going to be the motivation behind agriculture then industrialisation stands to reason. A glance at one of the core drivers of Industrialised Farming supports this assumption. Take the controversial science of Genetic Modification; as a human endeavour what is its aim? Science, ethics and innovation play second fiddle to economic incentives and increasingly equity market demands; science has become detached from its human development and welfare imperatives and has become another means to a financially beneficial end. Those who finance scientific research and education now define its objectivity – and therefore it is no wonder that there is concern over the development of this technology and its application to life. The cynical thinking behind this technology is illustrated by the current desire to use GM crops that are unwanted in economically developed nations as food aid for economically developing nations. The development of this technology may be described as a cost saving initiative for developed nations in their obligations to meet their aid responsibilities. Responsible trade and accounting by the minority World would be more in line.

‘Ninety-five percent of the new science in the world is created in the countries comprising only one-fifth of the world's population. And much of that science…neglects the problems that afflict most of the world's people.’
- Kofi Annan (Secretary-General of the United Nations) Science, Vol. 299, No. 5612, p. 1485. Mar 7, 2003

New Deli Food and Trade Analyst Devinder Sharma once compared the economic profile of a Western reared cow to that of an average Third World Farmer for The Ecologist Magazine (UK). Not surprisingly Devinder found that the financial support a western cow receives via subsidisation amounts to almost twice the annual income of a Third World Farmer. Furthermore, Devinder went on to question the fact that an animal reared in the West may consume up to six times more grains than needed for the average human’s dietary intake when about 800 Million people in our World are Starving. Such concerns for inequity are of no consequence to Economics, modern Science or Government. What is important is the maintenance of the frameworks behind these inequities that run parallel to superficial movements of their own design towards equality. Acceptance (or ignorance) is important for the success of our subversion. Through our dependency on economic wealth for existence our attention towards the injustices of this system is diverted – we have become detached, so much so that a system where welfare and unrestricted human development on a collective scale is unthinkable – considered idealistic or naïve. Regarding the observations of Devinder and countless other Agricultural commentators the same rules apply; their message is a fiction to a World detached and drowned by the pursuit for economic liquidity.

Fighting a tide that never seems to abate has been the task of environmentalists, alternative thinkers and concerned individuals for the past century. There have been many seemingly positive advances made towards more ethical considerations in our endeavours. However the fact remains that in terms of human equality on all levels, we are still regressing. Never before have individuals, certain nations and cultures had so little autonomy over the path of their development, never mind existence, in the face of apparent freedom. Industrial Agriculture, being a phenomenon born of the Power nexus, epitomises this trend of human social evolution. Consumers in so-called developed nations revel in the abundance and seemingly endless choice of food available to them while simultaneously distancing themselves from the food’s origins. Parents congratulate themselves on finding the latest lunchtime ‘Fun Food’ snack for their children without ever questioning what lies behind the colourings and additives. Nobody questions the collapse of a rural community due to legislation made by a central government office hundreds of miles away. Likewise hunger and poverty are another nations problem and never related back to policies made in our apparent favour if it means having to make the effort to challenge government – and if a challenge is made, the government in question is inaccessible or lobbied so much by corporations that democracy becomes the domain of the highest bidder – and the Riot police enforce democracy in their globally renowned efficient manner. A blind trust or, more likely, a preoccupation with economic pursuit, keeps greater society from challenging the status quo. This is not due to society being un-informed or being without the full possession of the facts; the information is all around just waiting to be absorbed. The problem that alternative movements and advocates for change have is that they want to affect positive change but they play by the rules that are maintained to ensure positive change is impossible.

‘Rules’ are in fact an - at best - poor description of the systems that make up the frameworks that determine our development. Rules demand a certain amount of clarity, objectivity and, probably most all, parity. None of these qualities are at present part of international development, trade or community legislation. Our planet is principally carved into trading blocks that use economic might to further economic interest – and there are certain institutions that ensure the implementation of the dogma of the economically strong is secured. For things to stay the same, things must change; and so it is with the ‘rules’ indoctrinated in ever changing international trade law. There is a massive amount of information, analysis and data pointing to the failure of international institutions such the IMF, World Bank and the WTO in their individual mandates to further international Human development and welfare through participation with the international economic community. Considering the formats, policies and principle-contributing members of these institutions one may offer some explanation as to why, in fact, their work so far has been remarkably successful. To believe that these institutions are focused on human welfare is patently naïve. They have been remarkably successful in the marginalization of every nation unfortunate enough to be selected for ‘development’. Take the 51% US Treasury owned World Bank and its successful global deregulation of public utilities for the benefit of companies like Enron that raised electricity prices in some nations (more than often of a ‘developing’ status) by up to 1000%. The fact that Enron was (‘was’ being the operative word as Enron went bust ‘officially’ in 2001 following years of severe book cooking) the highest lifetime contributor to the political career of George W Bush makes everyone involved a winner. If you were a loser then you don’t exist in the first place. Likewise, under the WTO Codex Allimentarius Brazil found it faced international trade sanctions if, as it wanted, to reject the marketing of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone – and so it didn’t. Another success for an institution formed with our ‘development’ in mind.

Industrialised Agriculture, a vehicle formed and pursued for the maintenance of Power, relies on a commercial ideology also born of the race for Power polarisation: Capitalism. A key feature of capitalism and Industrialised agriculture alike is the drive for standardization for the purpose of ‘securitization’ that ultimately enables speculation. Countless agricultural goods – aka commodities – are traded on the basis of a World Market price. Here wheat is wheat and pork bellies are pork bellies; quality, origin, animal and crop husbandry are not accounted for. These prices affect directly and indirectly what incomes millions of farmers realise for their harvests. But farmers and end users are only spectators in the World markets. Most participants are speculators (read: Banks) betting $billions on price fluctuations – often 90% of trading on these markets is in fictitious supplies underwritten by speculators betting on a direction in future price and closing the contract (buying or selling to neutralise the original bet position) before it reaches maturity, so the fate of the other 10% of real farmers tied to an income based on World market prices is subject to price (thus income) volatility induced externally to the real market. This is fine if you happen to be farming in one of the rule making nations as no doubt heavy subsidisation makes the market price of your produce only a small contributor to overall income. Not so good if your country is considered ‘developing’ by the WTO and any protection of your farmers is deemed uncompetitive and thus illegal. This is ‘free’ market economics at work and Industrialised Agriculture compliments its perpetuation and escalation.

The date is 21st March 2003 and it is 10.30am. As I write this I am tuned to coverage of what was twenty-four hours ago ‘The War on Iraq’ but as now that it is happening, been amended to the more marketable ‘The War on Saddam’. I continually break to shout and hurl things at the TV. The body count so far is a dozen Coalition troops killed in separate helicopter accidents, any number of Iraqi soldiers and approximately 50 (unconfirmed BBC reportage) Iraqi civilians that apparently are the ‘collateral damage’ that should only be expected. An American Flag now stands in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr – I’m sure the Golden Arches are on their way to rename it ‘Umm Large Fries Please’ and the launch of the ‘Umm With Cheese’ will shortly follow; the benchmark for perceived freedom these days being the right to eat shit food - subversive advertising to children notwithstanding. Saddam Hussein still lives. People are defiantly demonstrating against the War across the Globe. Rupert Murdoch is rubbing his hands together as the media machine offers live coverage of missile attacks on Baghdad – the race is now on to offer the first interactive War that you can control from the comfort of your armchair and be the first to get the computer game developed in time for a victorious conclusion. And from his Hollywood director designed (this is true!) US War Command Centre in Qatar Tommy Franks is reassuring all the sitting room generals around the World that the War is going to plan. Without going down the line of speculating on the real reasons for British and the US eagerness to ignore international law under the UN (probably to be the ReUnitedNations once ‘regime change’ has been affected – or maybe it too will be selected for ‘regime change’) and threaten World peace, I find this action typical of the Power nexus. When reason, or thorough constructive dialog between people becomes counter productive to the wishes of those with Power – or the direction of Human endeavour looks like moving alternative to these wishes, Power definitively reminds us of just what means it will employ to reach it’s ends; rhetoric, media, spin, lies, corruption, disregard and cruise missiles are favourites. I see no difference in what happened at the UN than that which happens in international trade and development regulation on a daily basis. Detached and dehumanised means for the benefit of those of us lucky enough to superficially benefit from the ends; having cheap oil, stable equity markets and cheap food through the spread of multinational corporations to pastures new. Lets protect the status quo; in the words of Tony Blair today ‘…protect our way of life…’

Excuse me this small aside. I’m trying to write this piece in such a way as to keep industrialised farming a key theme. The problem is that the issues and underlying reasons for industrialised farming and all the mess that accompanies its practice become blurred with so many other alarming aspects of today. Another area of possible confusion is my definition of Industrial Agriculture. As much as Organic Agriculture was originally a practice dependant on a philosophy, so to, in my opinion is Industrialised Agriculture. The Philosophy of Industrialised Agriculture goes beyond the disregard for ‘Man in Harmony with Nature’ principles. Like its central proponents mentioned earlier, Industrial Agriculture is underpinned by commercial endeavour to the point of a disregard for even ‘Man in Harmony with Man’ principles. Scale, competition, market share, advantage, profit and maximisation – all accounted in economic terms only – make up the philosophy of Industrialised Agriculture. Worryingly, commercial imperatives are becoming the driving force for much of the Organic Agriculture movement. To be commercially ethically correct, commercially healthful and altogether commercially ‘Green’ is the marketing tool of the Twenty First Century. For ideas that grew out of honest concern and need for action to result in just another marketing bonanza for Corporations that bend the rules to suit their advantage is disheartening. Organic certification is only a standard dependant on financial viability for participation and is a means to reduce the values and philosophy originally behind Organic Agriculture to a rubberstamp that can be advertised and sold. Organic farmers in the West must pay to practice Organic Agriculture, sell their goods thus and forgo autonomy on the running of their farms. The principles of successful industrialisation genetically modified and repackaged and patented with a greener hew. The irony of an Organic Farmer having to pay a third party to practice what is in effect a philosophy for the plain and simple reason of the commercialisation of the values s/he possess is totally lost on many. Just as the irony of Indian farmers starving while tonnes of grains lay rotting in Indian grain stores due to trade intervention restrictions under WTO regulations is lost on many Westerns brainwashed with ‘Trade (at all costs!) Works’. I await the first certification body to float on an equity exchange to make this morphing complete.

This month is the anniversary of PortiaSun. When PortiaSun was established in both body and soul twelve months ago there was a clear idea as to what people and produce we wanted to give a face and voice to. There were clear ideas as to how we wanted to do this: what was good and what should be avoided. We support the philosophy of Organic Agriculture and encourage producers and consumers to consider alternatives to their present choices. There is, we feel, a need for a service uncorrupted by a commercial heartbeat to promote our cause. This is why in many cases we have aggressively questioned some of the paths a few of our ‘champions’ have chosen to follow in their development. In the above I have made regular reference to the ‘Power nexus’. Monumentally the past century saw influential Power simultaneously envelope the Global community. Today it is increasingly defining the freedoms and directions of every aspect of our lives – no matter who, what or where we are. Industrial Agriculture is but one of the satellites of the Power nexus. To innovate and develop alternatives without adjusting the central trains of thought behind current formats for human endeavour only servers to tighten Power’s grip on our futures. It is in how we think that we believe workable – not subject to commercial infiltration – change can be achieved. This is not to disregard trade, as it is a valuable interaction between people – but we aim to address trade and the development of markets within the context of equitable participation, benefit and communal benefit for all. As we promote, support and advise producers and consumers alike, we are as much about testing and pressing for new thinking for a better course of development. The year that was this year has thus solidified our resolve to continue challenging ourselves to think beyond that which conforms simply to the way things are.

Thank you all for your support of PortiaSun and Malbouffe this past year –

AC