that there are only two sides -- those who support “organic” farming, and those who advocate “conventional” farming -- perhaps with no common ground between them. Our Staff Writer Constantine Akitanda recently held an interview with Jordan Gama, the President of African Organic
Agriculture Network (AfrONet), to reckon whether this debate holds water or not. Excerpts...
Question: Mr. Gama,Tell us briefly about AfrONet and why do you consider organic agriculture as an extraordinary agenda for Africa and AfrONet in particular?
Answer: The founding of African Organic Network (AfrONet) dates back to April 2008 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania at a meeting of three East African Organic Agriculture Movements and reverberated in August at the same year at a meeting of four National Organic Movements (NOAMs), including one from Southern Africa.
In 2009, the African meeting of NOAMs reiterated the need for the formation of an umbrella body to steer organic agriculture network in Africa. On May 2012, 38 participants representing 16 African countries had a pre-conference meeting in Lusaka at the second African Organic Conference where
they resolved to establish AfrONet as an umbrella organization uniting and representing African
organic stakeholders. This move was later approved by the 300 participants from over 40 countries as
was presented in the Lusaka Declaration on Mainstreaming Organic Agriculture into African.
Development Agenda with a vision of a united and vibrant African Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA) that transforms and empowers communities for sustainable livelihoods.
Q: But the fact is, a lot of “organic” food is grown using conventional farming techniques. And a lot of “conventional” crops benefit from agronomic practices developed by organic farmers. Why should many people argue that way?
Ans: Yes, organic food is grown using conventional farming mechanization and a means to increase land for cultivation and production, thus increasing income. But not all conventional farming practices are advised and practiced by organic farmers, like use of artificial/chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
Mechanization or use of tools is allowable in organic farming to ease land management, pests and disease control and conservation of water and soils. But advice is given on minimum tillage, where soil disturbance for land clearing low is practiced like use of tractors, harrowers and combine
harvesters.
Furthermore line planting and intercropping are farming practices encouraged in conventional, but in
organic they help in soil nutrient fixation and pest and disease prevention. But as long as chemicals are used and soils get depleted, it stops being organic and remains conventional.
t’s also very true that conventional crops benefit from agronomic practices developed by organic. This is because the conventional crops practice soil and water conservation which is organic, but use of chemicals pollutes the water and kills the soil micro organisms. If they use organic pesticides and herbicides, then it becomes organic. Conventional crops practice also line planting a n d intercropping among others, but depend heavily of artificial/chemical fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides that stay long in the soils, kill and alter normal functioning of soil micro organisms, useful pests and insects that help in pollination and breakage of materials into organic matter. Cover crops are also used in conventional like beans, cow peas and pumpkins, to reduce soil erosion and suppress weeds, but their existence in conventional farming involves also use of pesticides, that affect living organisms while during land clearing the plant materials (wastes) are not left in the garden, but rather cleared and burnt to create a clean land for another planting season.
Q: What’s the best way to feed a growing world population while simultaneously reducing the amount of land, water and energy required?
Ans: Unfortunately the debate over how to address the global food challenge has become polarized, pitting conventional agriculture and global commerce against local food systems and organic farms.
It should be noted that we share planet Earth with nearly 7.3 billion people and by 2050, there will be 9.6 billion of us, according to the United Nations. That’s a gain of one person every 15 seconds—or about 74 million more people each year—and each another mouth to feed.
Some claim we need to increase world food production by 70 percent to avoid future shortages, especially in developing countries, where the greatest population increases are expected over the next 35 years. But frankly speaking, to deal with this problem most effectively, we need to start implementing new agricultural strategies now.
The agricultural models that can feed a growing population in the developing world relying solely on industrial-scale agriculture, as many suggest, will not work, it will simply make worse the negative consequences of climate change while failing to feed the majority of the hungry, who are small-scale farmers. Instead, the best formula for the future may be more investment in local small-scale farming, reduced production of biofuels like corn-based ethanol and the elimination of food waste.
Q: The biggest problem within the debate over “Organic” and “Conventional” crops is that it
suggests there are only two ways to grow food; a “good” way and a “bad’ way. In your view what
does this mean?
Ans: In my view, the arguments can be fierce, and like our politics, we seem to be getting more
divided rather than finding common ground. Those who favour conventional agriculture talk
about how modern mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, and improved genetics can increase
yields to help meet demand. They might be right. Meanwhile, proponents of organic farms counter
that the world’s small farmers could increase yields—and help themselves out of poverty—
by adopting techniques that improve fertility without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. They’re more right, in my opinion.
I do not think preference for organic farming all over the world is centric. It can be seen in many
places, and I suppose the same set of reasons apply for preference in Tanzania and Africa as well. Primarily, farmers who prefer organic farming are fed up with chemical agriculture, which involves costs and impacts.
Chemical agriculture is based on the concept of ‘cide’ that is ‘to kill’. This kind of agriculture
was built on the edifice of killing anything and everything, in the path of production. Whereas,
organic farming enables live and let live kind of production. Of course, organic farming these
days is also seen as an economic concept because of its modern growth linked to market economics.
For this reason, many people would prefer organic farming or other call it natural farming and/or sustainable farming. However, whatever the nomenclature, non-chemical farming is
driven by the argument that leads to avoid chemicals in agriculture, awareness of health
impacts of food contamination and economic considerations. Agricultural production becomes
a pleasant pursuit, when done in non-chemical methods, and decreasing usage of fossil fuels.
Q: It is widely believed that almost all food is organic, and according to Webster’s dictionary, organic means “of, relating to, or derived from living organism.” Does this represent a clear
meaning of what organic proponents refer to?
Ans: This question is really about semantics. While I am nowhere close to a chemistry, biology,
or agricultural expert, the answer depends on what definition you are using. But in chemistry
terms, all food is indeed organic, since the chemical definition of organic is a compound
based on carbon: “Chemically, any compound containing carbon, with the exception of carbonates and cyanides.”
Some biology sources have defined organic as “of, pertaining to, or derived from an organism
or organisms” which presumably would then exclude food made in a laboratory. But over time,
“organic” has come to mean something very different in terms of food and agriculture.
On its website, the United States Department of Agriculture states: “Organic food is produced
using sustainable agricultural production practices. Not permitted are most conventional
pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients, or sewage sludge; bioengineering;
or ionizing radiation. Organic meat, poultry eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are
given no antibiotics or growth hormones.
In brief “organic food is defined not by any material substance in the food itself, but instead
by the ‘holistic’ methods used on organic farms.
Q: Could Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) seeds be used to grow an organic plant? If yes/no, why?
Ans: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) seeds are not permitted for use under organic production standards. Organic farmers follow organic standards which regulate what is permitted in terms of practices and inputs. In the East African for instance, we have an organic products standards which states very clearly that “Genetically modified organisms or their derivatives shall not be used or introduced through negligence or oversight. This includes animals, seed, and propagation material, farm inputs such as fertilizers, soil conditioners and crop-protection materials.”
In some countries, where GMO products on the market don’t have to be labeled, consumers can only avoid eating GMOs by choosing organic certified products.
The reason why GMO seeds are not allowedunder organic production is that organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Genetic
modification has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping GMO varieties.
In addition to that, humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna,
and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in
nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body.
GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.
