Organic perspective on life

After taking courageous and necessary stands on two issues, Ségolène Royal had to backtrack, and recognize that it is impossible, at this point, to boycott Roundup and Nutella, two symbols, which in time means the suicidal use of products diverted away from nature, but whose economic impacts are such that banning them cannot be improvised. As it is for all the other harmful products in the long term, that man or nature cannot live without today. And yet, this faux pas of a courageous Minister raises a serious question: Can we continue depleting the land of its resources in this manner? And poisoning human beings? Would it not make more sense to begin to think about the opportunity to cultivate the land differently? Eat differently? Shouldn’t France, an ancient nation of agriculturists, be at the forefront of this fight?

It was found that, in the 1970s, without pesticides, the world would have almost certainly been devastated by famine; and that by using them in a massive way, particularly in India, the priority of man over nature was asserted; but this had not been gained without a terrible cost: the loss of thousands of plant species; and with tragic and long-term consequences for men themselves, already in a dire situation in Punjab, where the Green Revolution started.

The time has come to re-examine the issue. Indeed, all of the studies show that we can feed 10 billion of us, without using the advantages that such techniques offer, by giving up intensive agriculture, by entrusting farmers with land ownership, by letting them use non-sterile seeds of endemic species and training them to make the best possible use of them. Every day, new discoveries show that intensive agriculture is no longer the panacea. For example, French researchers at a laboratory at the CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research) facility in Montpellier, have just confirmed, supported by experiments, that crop yields are higher when many different plants with high levels of genetic diversity are planted together. In other words, polyculture does improve yields, at least on a dry matter basis, especially in times of water scarcity. In fact, the analysis demonstrated that plants with different roots do not secure water and nutrients at the same depth, thus making it possible for them to more efficiently share the soil’s resources. At the time when crop yields are declining, due in particular to global warming, biodiversity is perhaps a part of the solution.

Certainly, much remains to be established (for example, would the result be the same if we were to take into account only the usable parts of the plant). Nonetheless, the time has come to examine the issue. To move on. Costa Rica provides the most obvious proof of that. Other countries, even India, are taking the lead, massively.

It is time, particularly for French agriculture, to take the lead of an inevitable development. Because that is what the demand is and will be; and not just for a few urban areas. But for all, fairly. Because studies accumulate to show its dietary validity and economic viability. Without confining ourselves to fine words somewhat hypocritical on ? sustainable agriculture,? but as a short step toward a totally organic agriculture.

It would be a great project for our farmers, even the most intensive, to think about and to want, before legislations impose measures on that matter: they will not always be able to oppose them. This enormous change, that will protect for centuries the beautiful landscape of France, will take place. We might as well get ahead of it in order not to be subjected to it.

It announces another change, even more important: if diversity is better than uniqueness for plant species, so too is it for humanity who will one day have to recognize that it must protect and cherish differences and that human beings all have a stake in living together, drug free and adjuvant free, for the best of our future.