Caroline Lucas: Cretin

"A major study by the UN last week showed an analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries and found that yields more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. It was even reported that organic farming had increased yields in East Africa by 128%, indicating that organic farming carries a far greater potential to improve food security than some may claim."

Mmmm hmm?

And are East Afrcian organic yelds higher than East African commercially farmed yields? Or are they just higher than East African peasant farming yields?

10 thoughts on “Caroline Lucas: Cretin”

  1. _Any_ sort of “yield” on a “_PROJECT_” (apologies for shouting here) in Africa is bound to show higher yields than what simply goes on normally. I should have thought that is was obvious.

    The Lucasette is not actually _falsifying data_ in this instance: merely misrepresenting a carefully-selected collection of facts on purpose. to make “organic” ! “farming!” look like the wave of the future.

    If we are all not careful, it may even become so by default.

  2. Africa is the sad home of projects. Stalinists regard humans as a “resource”, and thus do experiments upon us. They may have no intention of applying the results, or….worse….they may.

  3. How are farmers selected for these “projects” in the first place?

    There is a tendency to report “this is what we found out about the system we distorted” results.

  4. em butler

    I did read a piece several months ago about experiments using less water to grow rice and the yield was quite good.

    You know the real problem I have with garbage studies such as this? They all assume I’m stupid. Pisses. Me. Off.

  5. Just in case anyone reading this might want to read the facts for themselves, instead of indulging in knee-jerk naming calling, the actual report can be found here:

    To quote a small section:
    There are two emerging food security challenges:
    1. How to find ways to maintain and enhance food production while seeking both to improve the positive side-effects and to eliminate the negative ones?
    This will not be easy, as past agricultural development has tended to ignore both the multifunctionality of agriculture and the considerable external costs.16
    2. What is the best way to increase agricultural productivity in Africa and other developing countries where millions of people are still short of food?
    These questions are controversial, with widely varying positions about strategies which are likely to be effective, including: (i) expanding the area of agriculture;17 (ii) increasing per hectare production in agricultural exporting countries;18 or (iii) increasing total farm productivity in developing countries that are the most likely to need the food.
    The conventional wisdom is that, in order to double food supply, efforts need to be redoubled to modernize agriculture, as this approach has been successful in the past. But there are doubts about the capacity of such systems to reduce food poverty. The great technological progress in the past half-century has not resulted in major reductions in hunger and poverty in developing countries

    Tim adds: “The great technological progress in the past half-century has not resulted in major reductions in hunger and poverty in developing countries”

    Snigger. India was famine central in the 60s and 70s. Now they export food. China had a famine that killed tens of millions, now they are properly fed. That’s one third of humanity that has had a major reduction in hunger and poverty.

    Seriously, hasn’t the UN heard of the Green Revolution? Norman Bourlag?

  6. The shortfall is not principally in technology or “know-how” but in the capital necessary to
    utilize these; in turn, the lack of capital is chiefly due to the relative lack of institutional safeguards for its preservation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *