The rise of green conspiracy theories

Environmentalists’ opposition to modern farming techniques is based on junk science and madcap theories.

Bill Wirtz

‘Farming looks mighty easy when your plough is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the cornfield.’ Those were the prescient words of US president Dwight Eisenhower. Today, debate about farming has been colonised by environmental activists with little regard for the realities of farming.

In January, the 11th Oxford Real Farming Conference was held just a few days after the Oxford Farming Conference. Ironically, while the Oxford Farming Conference features actual professionals from the farming, biotech and retail sectors, the Real Farming Conference objects to this approach. The ‘Real’ conference was established to fight against ‘industrial’ agriculture. Instead of ‘big business’, it hosts farmers alongside eco-alarmists and the likes of Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion also protested outside the regular Oxford Farming Conference, dressed in bright red, accusing the attendees of killing the planet.

Many eco-warriors take issue with any farming that is non-organic and, in particular, with the use of pesticides and herbicides. Farmers are using herbicides not to upset activists but in an effort to increase crop yields. These products are necessary and safe. They have been approved by medical agencies, food-safety authorities and governments around the globe.

What’s more, the kind of organic farming favoured by environmentalists is actually bad for the environment. As Chris Bullivant explains on CapX, organic farming produces more greenhouse gases than conventional farming – up to 58 per cent more, in fact.

Nevertheless, the Real Farming Conference promoted an ‘organic transition’ away from the use of copper, plastics and ‘other contentious inputs’. Instead of industrial farming, the conference promotes ‘agroecology’ and ‘peasant farming’ – a back-to-basics approach without synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, GMOs and herbicides.

An agroecological approach would be a disaster for our food supply. Agroecology researchers themselves admit that this form of agriculture would decrease agricultural production by 35 per cent. But no matter. The activists’ goal is the complete annihilation of conventional intensive farming at any cost.

Modern intensive farming techniques have successfully rid most of our farmland of invasive species and other pests. In the face of this obvious success, the opponents of modern farming have had to stoop to questionable science.

At an agroecology conference in Kenya last June, one of the featured speakers was conspiracy theorist Tyrone Hayes. His research gave rise to the conspiracy-monger Alex Jones’s infamous claim that atrazine, a widely used herbicide, ‘turns frogs gay’.

Also promoted as a top-tier speaker was Gilles-Eric Séralini, a French biologist and science correspondent for Le Monde (though he was, in the end, a no-show). Séralini is one of the world’s best-known opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A major anti-GMO study he authored in 2012 has since been retracted and debunked by four government-funded studies (three by the EU and one by France). The scandal became known as the ‘Seralini Affair’. The case against GMOs is based on pseudoscience, but this does not trouble the agroecology movement.

The unfortunate truth is that these agroecology activists are influential. For instance, the head of the UK Soil Association, Gareth Morgan, is regularly quoted in national newspapers. He is agitating for a ban on all pesticides and fertilisers and wants the government to endorse agroecology. Parliament already has an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology. In 2018, Michael Gove, when he was environment secretary, spoke at the Real Farming Conference.

Farming and our food supply are far too important to be sacrificed to the pet projects of conspiracy theorists and radical environmentalists.

Bill Wirtz is a policy analyst for the Consumer Choice Center. Follow him on Twitter: @wirtzbill.

Picture by: Getty.

spiked needs your support

Defending liberty isn’t easy – especially in times of crisis, when freedom is so often traded away in search of security. But amid the coronavirus pandemic we at spiked have continued to speak up for our principles, calling for more scrutiny of the authoritarian measures being wielded over us and more debate on the best way forward. To continue to do that, we need your help. spiked is free and it always will be, because we want as many people to read us as possible. But to keep spiked free we rely on the generosity of our readers, particularly those who can give regularly. Even £5 per month can make a huge difference to us. We know it’s hard out there for many of you, now more than ever. But if you support what we do here and you can afford to contribute, to make sure we can continue to produce our free and fearless journalism for anyone who wants to read it, please do consider making a donation today.

Thank you! And stay safe.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

K Tojo

9th March 2020 at 3:18 pm

Many women and those soppier types of men who see their natural habitat as the creative sector, instinctively cringe at the word “chemical”. They seem to think it refers to something industrial and toxic. Organic, on the other hand, is the new “natural”.

In the new age lexicon:
industrial = patriarchal, aggressive, violating, exploiting;
natural = feminine, pure, nurturing, life-giving;

Jerry Owen

9th March 2020 at 11:36 am

GM rice has a nutrient in it that is found in carrots, the nutrient ( I forget it’s name unfortunately ) is good for eyesight and would stop millions of African babies from going blind if they were fed GM rice, however the green blob has decided that GM rice cannot be exported to Africa out of nothing more than vanity.

K Tojo

9th March 2020 at 3:01 pm

Very interesting. As you have forgotten the name of the nutrient could you perhaps provide a reference for where you found this piece of info. I am interested in reading more on the subject.

Kenneth Gallaher

9th March 2020 at 6:21 pm

It’s Vitamin A – and that so called Yellow rice is a scam.
It is a Trojan Horse for other GMOs.
It does not provide a meaningful about of Vitamin A.
It degrades with contact to air and has ever less Vitamin A.
A Chinese study which claimed to prove effectiveness was found to be fraudulent and withdrawn.
Every rice eating culture has its favorite rice – yellow rice will not be accepted.
Further, yellowing rice is a sign of dangerous degradation and would be rejected out of hand.

Eric Bjerregaard

12th March 2020 at 12:46 am

Ken is making up nonsense again. The study was not retracted for fraud. Greenpeace complained about a technicality regarding notifications of some of the participants. G.R. does provide the needed Beta carotene. It is not a trojan horse. the nations for which it was developed already have GE crops. The IRRI did the development. And folks often deliberately use spices to make rice yellow. Ken;’s allegations of color bigotry are ridiculous. Let the fsrmers and consumers decide.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.