The Demand - Led Promotion of Organic Farming

By Teodoro C. Mendoza

For the more than two decades that ecological agriculture, particularly organic farming, has been promoted in the country, the focus has been on the farmers and producers. The existing rationale is that farmers are the ones who are mainly involved in deciding what crop species to grow, when to plant, what inputs to apply - the over-all cultural management practices to use from land preparation and planting to harvesting. Because of this, it becomes logical to approach them and convince them to change or shift their production systems from their dependence and heavy use of agrochemicals to minimal or even zero use of agrochemicals - chemical fertilizers and pesticides - and to adopt farm practices that rebuild the soil and lead to balanced agroecosystems. At first glance, there appears be nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach. But a closer and deeper look into this rationale shows that it might not be fair, just, realistic, or practical.

It is not fair or just because in the first place, it was not the farmers per se who started the process of shifting what was previously agrochemical-free agriculture to an agrochemical-intensive agriculture system. It was the techno-economic-political system of the past that transformed the agricultural system.

Recalling the scenario pictured by Malthus in late 18th century when population was growing exponentially and food production increasing arithmetically, clearly foresaw a grim food deficit situation in the foreseeable future at that time. The technological advances brought about by the Industrial Revolution produced goods, such as war paraphernalia and chemicals, which could not readily be unloaded after the 2nd World War which resulted in the need for new markets.

What could sustain industrial progress under a "peaceful" global environment? Supplying the food needs of the emerging mass markets of the exponentially rising world population met the challenges of the new paradigm. It should be pointed out that agrochemical intensive agricultural system was, and still is, pursued both by the capitalist and socialist north. This is pointed out to indicate that agrochemical-intensive agriculture is ideologically-neutral.

The success achieved by the industrial economies of the North in adopting highly agrochemical intensive agriculture required a vigorous "transfer of technology" scheme for the South. First, this supported the continuous expansion of the North’s markets for their industrial products like agrochemicals for crops, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed supply surpluses for livestock. Second, to eliminate any political or ideological underpinnings, there was really a need to increase agricultural productivity in the South due mainly to the rapidly increasing population after the 2nd World War which, incidentally, continues to increase unabated up to this time, particularly in the Philippines. The North stabilized their population early in the 20th century (France did it about 1900, US about the 1940s). Third, many countries in the South were former colonies of the industrial North. While these countries supposedly gained political independence from their previous colonial masters, political leaders of these newly-liberated countries still needed the North’s material and technical support to address the mounting pressure of food shortages caused by their burgeoning populations.

Dubbed "The Green Revolution", it was mainly focused in rice or food staples. Soon, this strategy was expanded to all crops and livestock including aquaculture. Agricultural crop/livestock yield increased, averting the Malthusian forecast of a food crisis.

This agrochemical dependent agriculture was also promoted as "Modern Agriculture". The promotion of this scheme had many implications. If a farmer was not using agrochemical inputs together with the seeds and the package of technologies associated with the Green Revolution, he or she was labeled traditional or conservative. As the yields were generally lower, it was associated with poverty. Very few farmers wanted to remain poor or be labeled as conservative. Being traditional or conservative was also associated with being poor.

In the Philippines, it must be remembered that The Green Revolution was heavily promoted during the early years of President Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial Law. In the much-heralded "Masagana 99" program, and in government training and credit programs as well, farmers were organized into "Samahang Nayon" or Village Associations which expediently supported and facilitated the spread of this “modern” agricultural technology. This was implemented mainly through loans provided by the World Bank and other international financing agencies which were then used by governments to construct irrigation systems, buy large farm machinery, and extend loans to the farmers to enable them to buy agrochemicals and small farm machinery. This was also the time of the "Debt for Development" program of Robert McNamara, the Director General of World Bank then. This was also the time when the Bank had lots of surplus funds due to the unprecedented amount of money in the hands of the oil industry, in addition to other excess funds coming from other sources in the industrial North.

Not only were farmers labeled as traditional or conservative, farmers also ran the risk of being portrayed as anti-government or subversive elements if the government-sponsored food production were not adopted. Hence, the easy way out of such a life-threatening condition was for farmers to simply adopt the Green Revolution practices together with the amenities of easy credit which, by the way, could undergo 3-4 renewals if farmers failed to pay in case of crop failures brought about by plant diseases or calamities such as floods and typhoons.

The rest is history. Today, many know the drawbacks of the so-called Modern Agricultural Model, which is mainly characterized by the use of high yielding varieties (open-pollinated or hybrids, transgenics or GMO's), and the heavy use of agrochemical inputs. It is also common knowledge that our soils are now degraded, acidic, eroded, saline in some areas, and with a low supply of nutrients for crop uptake, requiring fertilizer to be applied in larger and larger amounts in order to get high yields. Then there is also the imbalance between pest populations and their predators, making pesticide use by farmers necessary, which in turn, makes them mix pesticide cocktails to increase toxicity. Today, the presence of pesticide residues in food, in the food chain, and in the ecosystem is well-known. Hazardous effects of pesticides on human health, including their effects on the endocrine systems in the form of sex reversals are now well documented. Cancer, a rare disease during pre-modern agriculture, is now a dominant illness. The incidence of breast and prostate cancer has increased phenomenally.

The campaign now is to go back to farmers and convince them to adopt ecologically sound and organic-chemical-free methods of cultivation.
What should comprise the main campaign strategy?

• Inform and train farmers on the ill-effects (environment-health-financial) of modern agro-chemical intensive agriculture.

• Organize farmers and form cooperatives to produce "organics" and
assist farmers in marketing their organic produce. NGOs and private individuals may be able to provide soft loans to and other incentives to the farmers-converts.

Two decades after the “Green Revolution” how many Organic Agriculture (OA) converts does the Philippines have? The Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Inc. (MASIPAG), a Philippine NGO composed of farmers, scientists, and peoples’ organizations, estimates that there are approximately 30,000 Filipino organic farmers (http://www.masipag.org/news_india.htm). The CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rp.html#Econ) estimates that 36% of the approximately 35,790,000-strong Filipino labor force are in the agricultural sector for a total of 12,884,400. Numerically, 30,000 looks like a lot, but proportionally their numbers are a miniscule 0.23% or 23 out of 10,000 farmers. Their numbers are not increasing though. The theory being advanced is that the promotion of OA must be focused on the supply-side of the supply and demand curve. There may be nothing wrong with this approach. But upon closer scrutiny, we have to ask ourselves what the weaknesses of this approach are:

1) Very few farmers are philosophers, poets, or environmentalists. By and large, farmers farm for livelihood, to generate income for their families, and to produce food. They adopt systems and practices that will enable them to achieve their goals in farming, or those that will lighten the burdens of farming, such as:

- The use of machines to facilitate land preparation, threshing, and milling

- The use of herbicides to control weeds

- The use of pesticides to eliminate, if not minimize, the risk of crop failure and possible yield reduction

Because of these factors, only a few (23 out of 10,000) have shifted to organic farming.

2) The shift from modern to organic chemical free agriculture is not mechanical. It is much more complex than it appears to be.

First, farmers are not a simple biological entity. They are thinking people who have emotions or feelings. It is not uncommon to hear farmers tell a farm extension worker, "You were the ones who propagated modern agriculture through the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Why are you telling us now to stop using them?" This comment simply reveals a deep-seated feeling among these farmers.

Second, farmers were not the one who started these agricultural systems. Now, that the effects of the system has already been recognized, why should the burden of change and the attendant risks be on them?

This leads to real and practical aspects of farming. Farmers are not as stupid as they are portrayed to be if they do not shift to OA. Soil fertility ranges from bad to worse in different places. How would they farm organically without encountering yield declines? A 15% to 20% decline in yields for rice in the first two croppings after shifting to OA methods of planting has been observed (http://www.masipag.org/news_india.htm). For a country with a food deficit like the Philippines, it would be nothing short of a catastrophe if the majority of farmers were to decide to go cold turkey and shift to OA overnight.

Should farmers be left alone or should they shoulder the greater burden of shifting to OA? They have families to feed, shelter, and clothe, and most have children who need to go to school.

A demand-led approach to the promotion of Organic Agriculture

What constitutes a demand-led approach to the promotion of organic agriculture? The Law of Supply and Demand can influence the mechanics of the implementation of OA adoption by many, if not all, Filipino farmers. The consumers comprise the demand side of the production-to-postproduction linkage. Farmers follow the economic logic in production which is, that which is demanded by the consumers will be that produced by the farmers. Following this logic if consumers demand chemical-free agricultural products, then farmers shall simply follow that signal. Demand in this case can be interpreted in a number of ways.

1) Consumers must be willing to support farmers in the production of chemical-free products

2) Consumers must be willing to pay a premium. Consumers’ willingness to support the farmers in the production of chemical-free products can be expressed in several ways.

a) Consumers can visit and help motivate farmers to grow crops and animals the organic way. Since organic production systems are different from the agrochemical dependent systems, consumers must also be familiar with the organic production system. Basic in organic production system is soil building or natural soil fertility restoring activity. How can a consumer-supported soil building be done? Let us first trace how natural soil fertility is lost.

a) Products consumed (crops and animals) represent off-farm losses of nutrients.

b) The production of crops and animals has a corresponding loss of nutrients through soil erosion, especially in sloping lands.

c) The use of agrochemicals has soil degrading effects like soil acidity build-up as a result of using acid-forming fertilizers.

d) Specific farming practices like burning crop and weed residues contribute to soil organic matter loss.

Listing the four (4) major causes of natural soil fertility losses leads us to the more complex task of avoiding soil fertility losses and devising measures to mitigate them. Let us leave this complex discussion for a while as it requires another paper to discuss it.

The soil aspects of organic production are complex to deal with but the pest aspects are equally, if not more complex, to deal with at present. Although the soil and pest aspects are interrelated as viewed in organic production systems, pest ecosystems must be well understood. Farmers’ overuse of pesticides is not simply because they fear for yield or quality loss.

Producing and harvesting pest-free crops is equally important. Consider pechay or Bok Choy production. In summer, pechay is sprayed daily (early in the morning) to preempt insect bites so that leaves are unblemished with holes and leaves do not form irregular sizes and shapes.

A demand-led OA requires that consumers be willing to buy agricultural products with irregular sizes or shapes, including those that have insect bites.

More difficult factors to address that compound pest damage arise from the production of off-season fruits and vegetables. Nature designs crop seasonality, but due to agrochemical and pesticide use, crops can now be grown the whole year round. Tomatoes can be grown during the wet season in elevated/high altitude areas. Insect and fungal infestations are prevented by spraying insecticides or fungicides. A farmer growing tomatoes during the wet season claimed that it was useless to grow tomatoes during the rainy season if they were not sprayed with chemicals regularly.

Mangoes can now be produced off-season by using a flower inducer. Producing mangoes during the rainy season from September to November is conducive to insect and fungal pest population build-up due to high moisture. To hasten maturity of the leaves, farmers spray chemicals before applying flower inducer. July and August are rainy months which are also characterized by the population build-up of pests and fungi that attack the flowers. To protect the flowers and small fruits later, pesticide spraying is a must in order for flowers to develop into fruit and small fruit into bigger fruits. The farmers invest in the chemicals to make the mangoes flower, and they continue to spend until harvest time to make their venture financially successful. If there are typhoons or heavy rains prior to harvesting these investments are wasted. The farmers are in a bind.

As the leaves are forced to mature, their photosynthesis functions are impaired. Chemicals are sprayed again to enhance photosynthesis so that the increasing demand for photosynthates of the growing fruits may be met. Meanwhile, consumers are more than willing to buy mangoes in October or November. Before there was such a thing as off-season production, they had to wait until April or May to buy mangoes.

Consumers who are willing to support OA production should understand crop seasonality so they are prepared to forego for them during the off-season. This also means that they must be willing to buy preserved fruits and vegetables.

Consumers must be willing to pay a premium price for organic products. This is a big issue for organic products. Consumers in the Third World countries already consider current food prices to be too high. Approximately 85% of the Philippine population lives on less than US$2.00 per day; and more than 51% of the rural population live below the subsistence threshold as defined by the World Bank (http://www.masipag.org/news_india.htm). The government’s average mandated minimum wage is PhP250 (US$6.00) per day. The current retail price of ordinary rice in the wet markets ranges from PhP18 to PhP24/kg (US$0.36 – US$0.48/kg). Supermarket retail prices of organic rice range from PhP35/kg (US$0.70/kg) for ordinary varieties to PhP45 (US$0.90/kg) for fancy varieties (red, black, glutinous or aromatic rice). The current high price of organic rice retards the growth in consumption and demand for organic rice.

Consumption of organic rice is thus limited to those who can really afford to pay – well-off cancer patients who are advised to eat organic products; those who have undergone heart surgery; and the few environmental and health conscious sectors of the society who can afford it.

The other issue is price. Why pay a high price? Or, is a higher price for organically grown products just and fair?

The premise is that consumers must be willing to pay a premium price as part of a demand-driven component of OA adoption by farmers.

There is a need to clarify what consumers are paying for. The consumers are simply paying for the market price of what they buy. The financial price that is paid does not truly reflect the true value of the product since all the costs of production are not included. The total costs should include (1) financial - the costs of purchased inputs - seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, machineries, cost of money, labor, storage, packaging, marketing, and distribution (2) ecological - soil quality deterioration due to the inputs and farming methods applied and all other environmental and ecological costs.

What is paid for is simply a small fraction of the total cost. It has been estimated that the true cost of a beef burger in the US can be about US$100 per piece if the ecological costs are counted (http://www.spirulinasource.com/earthfoodch7a.html). But it is sold only at US$2.00 – US$3.00 per piece by the food chains. What this means is that the current market price is so low because government subsidies and the ecological costs of raising beef are not included. It means that future generations will pay dearly for these unseen costs. Even now, we are already starting to pay the price as reflected in the rise of lifestyle-related illnesses and global warming.

The cost of growing crops and animals is grossly under-priced. But the financial costs of their mass production using industrial methods: specialized cropping or monocropping + mechanization reduce the unit financial cost of production considerably. It does appear that larger farmers/producers are earning as they obtain a higher financial profit margin due to industrialized farming. (A discussion on ecological tax should interest both environmentalists and OA advocates).

With pricing parity based on the true or total cost accounting (financial + ecological), marketing of organically grown products is an uphill climb. Conventionally grown products are under-priced or even incorrectly priced. Their price tags are way below actual costs if the true costs of production and a reasonable profit margin are included.

Because of this, the market price of OA products appear to be more expensive as they are generally priced 20-30% higher. Is this acceptable?

If the true price tags of conventionally grown crops and animals are to be considered, then OA products are sold at considerably lower price. But the general consuming public who are already financially hard-up will not understand this logic. What they would appreciate, considering their current shrinking purchasing power, is the financially low price of products that they buy in the market. (I might also be wrong in excessively underestimating the very same people who need to eat healthy food).

In effect, what is being presented is that the 20-30 % higher price of OA products is not really high or a premium price after all. Why?

OA grown vegetables have higher quality and higher nutritional value with more vitamins and lower water content. Thus, they keep longer (they do not wilt) even at ordinary room temperature; and they taste better, in fresh salads or in cooked form. OA-grown rice tastes better and stores longer. A common observation is that cooked OA rice does not spoil in 24 hours.

Eating OA-grown crops is consuming nutritional and medicinal food
OA-grown crops are medicinal food. More and more findings and testimonies indicate that organically grown crops heal cancer patients who have already received death sentences (6 months to 1 year) from the medical doctors treating them. The healing power or contribution to good health of OA food is still vaguely understood. What we do know about OA food is that they are rich in vitamins, minerals, and anti-oxidants which are useful as precursors in enzyme formation or activators of immune/repair systems inside the human body.
Patronizing OA-grown crops consumes nutritional and medicinal food at the same time. Everybody should put a premium (premium price is not correct here) on health because there is no price tag on one’s body. This explains why poor farmers sell their valuable land and possessions to send their sick family members to a hospital.

"Health Banking" is unusual. What is common is money banking. Consuming OA-grown healthy food is a sure and gradual way to health asset build-up and accumulation or health banking. Consider the health care bills - medicines, doctors’ fees, laboratory fees that accumulate once a person begins to suffer heart disease, hypertension, arthritis, gout, diabetes, or cancer, among others. These are known as "lifestyle diseases" which were mostly unheard of in the days of pre-modern agriculture. Consuming OA health foods offers the body built-in protection against impaired immune systems triggered by the bio-accumulation of pesticides and other agro-chemicals in the food chain that ultimately end up at the top of the food chain - in the human body.

An additional 20-30% in the market price of OA-grown crops is a drop in the bucket if the numerous interrelated benefits to human health and the cost to our planet’s ecosystem are considered. Imagine the lost productivity and income of an individual who is ill and the medical costs incurred in the prophylactic treatment of the illness. It is a rather lengthy process to audit the ecological costs - greenhouse gas emissions of manufacturing fertilizer, pesticides, and the machineries and fossil fuels involved in transport, hauling, processing/storage and repair costs - to the soil and our ecosystem brought about by the use of resource degrading inputs. But this must eventually be done if we want to arrive at the true value of the food we eat.

The point of this discussion is that the farmers will simply uphold economic dictum. Whatever consumers demand will be the products in a form and scale that farmers will produce. If the consumer is apathetic, indifferent, unaware, or unconcerned with they way food is grown and food is looked at as simply stuff to fill an empty stomach once the digestive enzymes signal hunger, the consumer will get what he or she wants – a full belly with minimal nutrition and health benefits.

Consumers must recognize the need for nutritional and medicinal foods and must be made conscious of the costs to our planet’s ecosystem brought about by Modern Agriculture. And this knowledge must then be translated into a demand that will lead to changes in the supply side thereby changing the agricultural production systems that 99.77% of our Filipino farmers currently adopt.

Teodoro C. Mendoza is a faculty member of The Crop Science Cluster, College of Agriculture, UP Los Banos. Email : tcm_uplb77@yahoo.com