Big Ag is breaking our planet bad

In recent decades, a few large agribusiness companies have increasingly influenced the global food and farming system. Some of these companies control seeds and agrochemicals, while others dominate trade and marketing or own vast amounts of farmland. Their growing influence on farm policy has sparked controversy, particularly regarding the spread of genetically modified (GM) crops and the agrochemicals associated with them.

However, there is mounting evidence that the farming practices promoted by these companies have caused significant ecological damage and are not sustainable. Senior agronomist Rene Dumont says, “Much of the extraordinary increase in (farm) production recorded between 1950 and 1984 was achieved by depleting farm resources.” Similarly, Lester Brown and Edward Wolf points out, “Often the very practices that cause excessive erosion in the long run, such as the intensification of cropping patterns and the ploughing of marginal land, lead to short-term production gains, creating an illusion of progress and a false sense of security. Indeed, the US crop surpluses of the early eighties, which are sometimes cited as the sign of a healthy agriculture, are partly the product of mining soils.”

Unsustainable practices

The green revolution has mostly promoted the use of intensive monocultures, but this practice can hurt the long-term fertility of the land. The World Resources Report (WRR) notes, “Soils under intensive monoculture tend to lose organic matter and their ability to retain moisture, thus becoming more susceptible to erosion and ultimately losing their fertility and productivity.”

Intensive monoculture usually requires a greater use of chemical pesticides. However, only a tiny fraction of the pesticides applied–less than 0.1 percent in some cases—actually targets the intended pests. The rest ends up polluting the land and water, harming birds and other wildlife. As WRR notes, “wholesale elimination of helpful soil-dwelling insects and microorganisms that build soil and plant nutrition sometimes occurs, essentially sterilising the soil.”

It's well-known that using too many chemical fertilisers can reduce the flavour of food, but what's less recognised is that it can also lower its nutritional value and lead to serious health issues. According to nutrition expert C Gopalan, “the use of high analysis chemical fertilisers, which is part of the modern intensive agricultural technology, had not always gone hand-in-hand with appropriate measures for soil testing and soil replenishment, with the result that, as shown by the studies of FAO, there are disturbing evidences of micronutrient depletion of soils in some areas; these are likely to be eventually reflected in impaired nutritive value of food-grains grown in such soils.”

Richard Douthwaite in his recent book The Growth Illusion writes, “Nitrogenous fertilisers can raise the amount of nitrate in the final crop to four or five times the level found in the compost-growing equivalent, while at the same time cutting vitamin C and dry matter levels. This change is potentially serious, since nitrates can be turned into powerful carcinogenic nitrosamines by bacteria found in the mouth, while vitamin C has been shown to protect against cancers.”

Climate crisis

The dangers of overusing chemical fertilisers have become even greater in the era of climate change. The International Panel for Climate Change estimates that for every 100 kg of nitrogen fertiliser applied to the soil, one kg ends up in the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide and the world’s most significant ozone-depleting substance.

Wendell Berry, the well-known writer and farmer-philosopher from the USA, has argued that, beyond damaging the soil and environment, many modern farming practices promoted by big business and governments are forcing small farms out of business, disrupting rural communities and their culture.

In his famous book ‘The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture’ he writes, “A healthy farm culture can be based only upon familiarity and can grow only among a people soundly established upon the land; it nourishes and safeguards a human intelligence of the earth that no amount of technology can satisfactorily replace. The growth of such a culture was once a strong possibility in the farm communities of this country (USA). We now have only the sad remnants of those communities. If we allow another generation to pass without doing what is necessary to enhance and embolden the possibility now perishing with them, we will lose it altogether.”  

The disconnect

The social and ecological harms are connected, as large companies can't care for the soil and crops in the same way that small farmers and farming communities can. The machines now doing most of the work on farms in wealthier countries can increase food production, but they can't protect the soil for future generations. As more skilled farmers leave agriculture, it's becoming less likely that there will be enough people to not only produce food but also care for the land and soil. Farm animals are increasingly treated like mere commodities, with little attention to their well-being. 

On the consumption side, poverty and inequality prevent many people from getting enough food, but even those who can afford it struggle to find wholesome, nutritious options. The market is dominated by food that’s heavily treated with chemicals or processed in ways that strip away valuable nutrients and add harmful substances.

The London Food Commission reported that at least 92 pesticides were cleared for use in Britain, despite being linked to cancer, birth defects, or genetic mutations in animal studies. In poorer countries, health risks can be even higher, as pesticides and other harmful agrochemicals banned in wealthier nations are often sold cheaply, posing dangers to both consumers and farmers who are in close contact with these harmful chemicals.

Illusion of safety

Regarding food additives, the London Food Commission noted that around 3,800 additives are used to perform about 100 different functions. The Commission stated, “A single meal may contain a cocktail of 12 to 16 additives. The combinations of additives may react with each other and with foods to produce new chemical substances.”

Much of the confusion comes from treating agriculture like an industry—or even mining—focused solely on maximising short-term production and profit. Wendell Berry has effectively pointed out the flaws in this widespread approach.

“The farmer differs from the industrialist in that the farmer is necessarily a nurturer, a preserver of the health of creatures.” He further writes, “The economy of industry is, typically, extractive. It takes, makes, uses, and discards, it progresses, that is from exhaustion to pollution. Agriculture, on the other hand, rightly belongs to a replenishing economy, which takes, makes, uses, and returns - it involves the return to the source, not just of fertility or of so-called wastes, but also of care and affection.”

Explaining why this fundamental understanding of agriculture is often overlooked today, Wendell Berry writes, “The ‘free market’—the unbridled play of economic forces—is bad for agriculture because it is unable to assign a value to things that are necessary to agriculture. It gives a value to agricultural products, but it cannot give a value to the sources of those products in the topsoil, the ecosystem, the farm, the farm family, or the farm community. Indeed, people who look at farming from the standpoint of the ‘free market’ do not understand the relation of product to source. They believe that the relation is merely mechanical because they believe that agriculture is or can be an industry. And the ‘free market’ is helpless to suggest otherwise.”

Roadmap

Government policies that strongly promote ecologically sustainable farming and support rural communities could offer new hope. In this regard, the Indian government's recent announcement to promote natural farming on a larger scale is a positive step. However, it’s important to recognize that this cannot coexist with conflicting trends like the promotion of GM crops. GM crops pose serious health hazards and environmental risks, and their contamination can easily spread to conventional and naturally or organically grown crops. Most independent scientists oppose GM crops. India’s leading expert on the issue, Prof. Pushpa M Bhargava, who founded the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and was appointed by the Supreme Court of India to advise on related issues, summarised the situation: “There are over 500 research publications by scientists of indisputable integrity, who have no conflicts of interest, that establish harmful effects of GM crops on human, animal and plant health and on environment and biodiversity… On the other hand, virtually every paper supporting GM crops is by scientists who have a declared conflict of interest or whose credibility and integrity can be doubted.”

This highlights a key point: the industrial agriculture system cannot protect the most essential need for safe and healthy food. Its main goal is to increase profits and control for large multinational agro-businesses, which rely on risky technologies and inputs like agro-chemicals, whose health dangers are well-known, and GM crops, which come with serious hazards. Despite all the promotion of industrial farming, the safety of food and the sustainability of small farming households are best supported by natural farming systems based in small farmer and family farm communities.