The controversy is overstuffed and a sloppy mess. So far, American and Mexican legal filings contain 586 pages, 758 exhibits, and nearly 2,000 footnotes. Arguments span over 20 separate USMCA provisions and multiple annexes. Extra submissions come from Canada and non-governmental organizations. It’s hard to follow, whether you’re a trade expert, scientist, or just care about food safety.

The U.S. position has two weaknesses: economic errors and misrepresentations about the Decree. These are basic mistakes, from a Trade 101 class, regarding injuries and policy. The fumbles stand out from the legalese and scientific jargon in the filings. And let’s be clear: he U.S. should drop the case.

A good place to start making sense of the fight is the actual Decree. Article 6 outlaws GMO corn for human consumption, precisely defined as corn for tortillas or masa (dough). It stops approvals for GMO corn for these two items. That is it. The Decree is explicit in not touching GMOs in animal feed or industrial use—the kind U.S. corn farmers mostly export.

CONTINUE READING ON COMMON DREAMS

The post Early US Fumbles in Tortilla War With Mexico Over GMO Corn appeared first on Regeneration International.

Biocultural recovery based on environmentally, socially and economically sustainable productive projects.

• The Secretary of SEFADER and other personalities assisted the event, a collaboration agreement was signed between Regeneration International and CEDICAM.
• Agave and its multiple uses, a driving force for sustainable development in the region
• The social, academic, public and private sectors join the project

On April 9, 2024, at the Center of Integral Campesino Development of La Mixteca (CEDICAM) in Asunción de Nochixtlán, Oaxaca, Mexico, Regeneration International (RI) and CEDICAM signed a collaboration agreement to implement the Billion Agave Project (BAP) in the Mixteca, a region with a strong presence of indigenous communities and a significant loss of biodiversity due to erosion and climate change, among other factors.

CEDICAM is a campesino organization made up of Mixtec indigenous people with a solid track record of social and environmental commitment. Since 1997 it has worked on the implementation of sustainable agriculture, the promotion of good nutrition, health care, soil conservation and the reforestation of thousands of hectares of forest, work that has earned its founder and general director, Jesús León Santos, the 2008 Goldman Prize.

The BAP, with a focus on economic, social and environmental sustainability and in collaboration with the social, community, academic, private and public sectors, aims to contribute to the preservation of the environment and the holistic improvement of living conditions in the communities, through the creation and implementation of various wide-ranging productive projects that take full advantage of and add value to one of the most deeply rooted crops in Oaxacan culture: agaves.

One of the main reasons why the BAP has aroused the interest of Mixtec communities is that it offers a viable solution to one of the main problems facing the region: the loss of the ecosystem’s capacity to provide sufficient feed for productive animals. This fact forces farmers to reduce or even abandon animal husbandry, as the purchase of feed is not an option for most people, given the weak economic situation faced in the region. Most worryingly, the difficulty or impossibility of raising animals puts the food security of the indigenous communities of the Mixteca at risk.

Addressing this problem, the BAP proposes agroecological model plantations based on agave, leucaena and other species -all of them with millenary cultural roots- to produce a feed of high nutritional value for animals, such as agave silage enriched with legume protein. The advantages of this project, among others such as soil improvement and carbon sequestration, are that both water demand and costs are significantly low. In addition, the agave landscape that once characterized the Mixteca would be recovered, and with it, the possibility of obtaining mead for tepache and pulque, and stalks for barbecue, which are uses, among many others, that have ancestrally occurred in the area.

The event was attended by the general director of CEDICAM, Jesús León Santos, the coordinator of the BAP, Arturo Carrillo, the director of Technology Management of the Center for Scientific Research of Yucatán (CICY), Javier García Villalobos, the representative of the indigenous communities of the Mixteca, Maximina Montesinos Santiago, the president of the Board of Directors of CEDICAM, Elaeazar García Jiménez, and the head of the Ministry of Agri-Food Promotion and Rural Development of Oaxaca (SEFADER), Víctor López Leyva.

(from left to right) Luis Arturo Carrillo Sánchez, BAP coordinator; Jesús León Santos, general director of CEDICAM; Maximina Montesinos Santiago, representative of the indigenous communities of the Mixteca; Elaeazar García Jiménez, president of the CEDICAM Board of Directors; Víctor López Leyva, secretary of SEFADER and Javier García Villalobos, director of Technology Management at CICY.

During the presentation, Jesús León Santos commented that the signing of the agreement between RI and CEDICAM means the start of a very important process for the Mixteca, where the presence of rainfall is limited and therefore peasant agriculture is always at risk due to drought, early frosts and poor soils. A project that focuses its efforts on the intercropping of agaves and forage forest trees sets a very important precedent, because they are plants that are able to adapt to conditions of low rainfall and develop in soils poor in organic matter. On the other hand, it represents an opportunity to conserve such an important species as the pulque agaves, linked to the peasant culture, not only for the pulque, but for all the products and by-products obtained from this plant. In this way, while generating a mechanism for the integral use of both agaves and fodder trees, it can generate economic opportunities for the farming families of the region, and he added that CEDICAM, together with RI and the participating farmers, will use all our capacities so that this project contributes to the recovery of the landscape and the improvement in the quality of life of the families.

In his speech, Arturo Carrillo also explained that the BAP consists of implementing various agave production and marketing projects that recover the culture of integral use that the native communities have had since long ago and that generate sustainable economic, environmental and social solutions in the regions where they are implemented. He added that the strategy is to develop these projects initially in five implementation hubs: 1) the Vía Orgánica Ranch in San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, 2) at the ranch El Mexicano in collaboration with Sarape CircuLab in Guadalajara, Jalisco; 3) at the Hacienda Sotuta de Peón in Yucatán; 4) in Suchixtlán, Oaxaca with the Koch Foundation and 5) at CEDICAM in Nochixtlán, Oaxaca. He also mentioned that some of these productive projects are the extraction and commercialization of inulin and lactic acid, the formulation of feed for productive and affective animals, the production of fermented and distilled products, and the production of molasses and syrup, among others, and all of them are being developed based on scientific and technological research of the highest level in collaboration with institutions such as the CICY or the Center for Research and Assistance in Technology and Design of the State of Jalisco (CIATEJ) and in close relationship with the native communities, who possess invaluable ancestral knowledge about their territory. He concluded by commenting that this type of project can only be developed in a harmonious collaboration between the social, community, academic, private and public sectors, for this reason -he stressed- an indispensable component on which we are working hard, is the link with these sectors.

Javier García Villalobos commented that CICY has made clear its intention to participate in the Billion Agave Project not only in the Yucatán region, but also in the state of Oaxaca. Particularly for the Mixtec region, CICY proposes, on one hand, to develop projects for the holistic use of both mezcal agaves and magueys to produce pulque, as well as to be a supplier of the plants for the implementation of the project, which will be produced in its Biofactory “Dr. Manuel L. Robert” and that present characteristics that provide advantages to the different segments of the value chain such as: reduction in the time for their maturation and the conservation of the organoleptic characteristics necessary for the production of by-products from these crops of national and international importance, just to mention a few.

In her turn, Maximina Montesinos Santiago commented that from the position of the women of the communities of the Mixteca region, the implementation of a project of this type will contribute significantly to the recovery of the soil and it is expected to improve the economy of the participating families, but more importantly, it will strengthen our culture linked to the agaves, such as the food, medicinal and related aspects of our local traditions. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly many products that can be obtained from agaves and this represents a great opportunity for our people and especially for women, in a region where there is no income due to lack of job opportunities, the mere fact of producing fodder from agaves, can profoundly change our culture of feeding our animals, providing them with better quality fodder. We women joined this project with the hope of changing our situation and demonstrating that it is possible to improve our quality of life through our ancestral crops.

Eleazar García commented that the agreement being signed will be of great benefit to the region and that CEDICAM will do everything possible to contribute to its success.

To close the speeches, the Secretary of SEFADER, Víctor López Leyva, expressed that the recovery of the agave culture in Oaxaca constitutes the opportunity to provide concrete answers of responsible development to the issues of environmental deterioration caused by deforestation and the careless opening of new territories to the cultivation of mezcal magueys, He concluded by affirming that “when an alliance is made with academia, the public and private sectors to rescue productive activities related to agaves, their preservation and durability, we are undoubtedly on the road to doing justice to the Oaxacan countryside”.

Also in attendance were several municipal presidents from the region and thirty community representatives.

To close the event, a delicious Mixteco-style barbecue was offered as a meal, accompanied by handmade native corn tortillas and pulque and tepache as a beverage.

The post The Billion Agave Project Expanding to the Mixteca Region appeared first on Regeneration International.

While these titans of US agriculture rhetorically embrace what they call regenerative farming, a funny thing is happening in the Corn Belt, the region where they exert the most influence. It’s where their seeds and pesticides fuel bumper corn and soybean harvests that suffuse our food system, and where factory-like barns and feedlots transform that bounty into the cheap pork, beef, and eggs that underpin our diet. There, soil is vanishing on a grand scale, and streams, aquifers, rivers, and lakes serve as catchment zones for toxic agrichemical runoff.

In 2021, a team of University of Massachusetts Amherst scientists, led by geomorphologist Isaac Larsen, began publishing a series of papers examining the scale of soil erosion in the Corn Belt—a broad swath of land stretching from Nebraska to Ohio and as far south as Missouri. Their first paper found that in fully one-third of the region, the layer of loamy, fertile soil has already washed away since U.S. farmer-settlers seized the area in the 19th century and subjected it to the plow. Another one found that what’s left is currently being lost at a pace as much as 1,000 times the natural pace of replenishment.

CONTINUE READING

The post Farm Like Our Health Depends On it appeared first on Regeneration International.

Our definition of Regenerative Agriculture:

Regenerative systems improve the environment, soil, plants, animal welfare, health, and communities.

The opposite of Regenerative is Degenerative

This is an essential distinction in determining practices that are not regenerative.

Regeneration International has consistently asserted that the four principles of organic agriculture are essential in determining whether practices are regenerative or degenerative.

Health

Organic agriculture should sustain and enhance the health of soil, plant, animal, human and planet as one and indivisible.

Ecology

Organic agriculture should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them and help sustain them.

Fairness

Organic agriculture should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities.

Care

Organic agriculture should be managed in a precautionary and responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of current and future generations and the environment.

Agricultural systems that use degenerative practices and inputs that damage the environment, soil, health, genes, and communities and involve animal cruelty are not regenerative.

Synthetic toxic pesticides, synthetic water-soluble fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, confined animal feeding operations, exploitive marketing and wage systems, destructive tillage systems, and clearing high-value ecosystems are examples of degenerative practices.

Such systems must be called degenerative agriculture to stop greenwashing and hijacking.

While we strongly support the principles of organic agriculture, Regeneration International cannot support mandating the current organic certification systems, such as the USDA and EU regulations, as the basis of regenerative agriculture. These systems need long-overdue reforms that are preventing the majority of farmers from taking up certification.

I am part of the generation of organic farmers who developed the first organic standards and certification systems in the 1970s and 80s to ensure the integrity of organic agriculture and stop false claims when people were selling their produce as organic. We did this to protect both farmers and consumers.

Our first standards were simple one—or two-page documents. Organic farmers developed them with extensive experience and knowledge of organic farming systems.

The first certification organizations were formed out of this. They were democratic, not-for-profit membership organizations. Our inspectors were other pioneering organic farmers whom we trusted for their knowledge and integrity. We would have an inspection once every two years and submit a signed declaration for the non-inspection years. We used to look forward to our inspectors, as it was time we could learn from them ways to improve our farms and organic production systems.

The worst thing that happened to the organic sector was when governments started regulating it. At the time, we believed that government regulation would protect the sector and stop fraudulent claims and substitutions, so we strongly advocated for it.

Our clear and compelling one and two-page standards became lengthy bureaucratic documents of complex requirements and restrictions. Our inspectors, initially respected fellow farmers, were replaced with auditors prohibited from giving advice.

The certifiers became inflexible bureaucracies that charged high prices for their services. The auditing process assumed that farmers were guilty until they could prove their innocence. The auditors spent less time inspecting the farm and more time inspecting the paperwork.

Initially, certification helped grow the organic sector as it built consumer confidence in the credibility of organic labels. As time passed and more countries enacted their national organic regulations, they became more variable and complex. Inconsistencies began to emerge, with some countries allowing antibiotic use, synthetic feed supplements, and toxic synthetic preservatives. These differences started to cause trade barriers, forcing producers who wanted to export to conform to each country’s regulatory systems and pay the extra costs of multiple certifications. It meant that only the largest operators with economies of scale could export their products as organic. This facilitated the rise of industrial organics.

Many countries were forced to change their national systems to conform to significant markets like Europe and the USA. I remember when Australia enacted an organic export law that complied with the European organic regulation so that a few grain growers could access that market. The rest of us were forced to pay extra for annual audits and comply with complex standards. The cost of certification in terms of time and money increased dramatically, even though most of us didn’t export.

Despite this, Australia had no agreement to export our primary organic produce, meat, because we didn’t have mandatory ‘housing’ for our livestock. We let our animals free range on pasture, eat grass and natural herbage, and allow them to express their natural behaviors. I was shocked when I first visited certified European organic dairy farms and realized the animals—cows, sheep, and buffalos—were confined in barns, stepping in their urine and manure, and fed unnatural grains for long periods. Organic CAFO systems.

The agribusiness cartels continued to hijack organic production systems and ignored the intentions of the standards. The USA had organic agribusiness CAFOs where the animals were confined and never allowed out into pasture. These factory farms deliberately disregarded the standard that mandated animals’ access to pasture. Some agribusiness operations were sued over this; however, they won in court when their high-priced lawyers successfully argued that having a window in the confined factory allowed animals access to pasture. Years were spent developing a new animal husbandry rule that required animals to spend time on pastures. The agribusiness cartels successfully lobbied members of Congress to prevent the new rule from becoming law, allowing massive cruel factory farms to sell their meat, milk, and eggs as organic. The law finally passed. However, there seems to be limited enforcement for them to comply.

The term ‘organic farming’  comes from J.I. Rodale, who popularized the name in the 1940s, He stated that the recycling of organic matter in soil was the basis of the system. Organic farming systems are soil-based systems. This was originally the first part of every organic standard. Initially, the most essential tool an inspector used was a shovel to inspect soil health. When certifiers employed auditors, the most critical tools were a laptop computer and a paper trail audit. Inspecting the soil was utterly neglected.

The ultimate betrayal of our original intentions in certifying organic was the agribusiness industry’s hijacking to get the USDA to approve soil-less organic systems—organic hydroponics. Due to the need for countries to conform to the largest markets, other countries are now approving hydroponics as organic. This has bitterly divided the organic sector. Many people feel that organic regulations and their certification systems have lost credibility.

What we started as pioneer organic family farmers 50 years ago has been hijacked by government bureaucrats and agribusiness cartels.  The trend is that in many parts of the world, the smaller family-owned organic farms have left the certified organic industry, although they still farm organically. The extra costs in money and overly bureaucratic, time-consuming compliance requirements mean that organic certification is not worth it. Consequently, the smaller family farms are being replaced by agribusiness. The trend shows the number of acres is increasing in a faster proportion than the number of farms. This is because large agribusiness corporations are replacing smaller family farms. Organic certification is increasingly becoming dominated by agribusiness.

My own experience is that I decided to stop being certified when I was President of IFOAM – Organics International, the worldwide umbrella body.  After decades of paying fees, I had received no benefits, only costs. I was not the only one in my region. Around the turn of the century (2000), our district had ten certified farmers. I was the 2nd last to give it up. By 2014, no certified farmers were left, although those of us who were still farming called ourselves organic farmers.

The only countries with significant increases in organic family farms are those that allow group certification. This is because it is cost-effective and fair. The bulk of new organic farmers come from India, Mexico, and Uganda, and they are group-certified.

Many countries permit participatory guarantee systems (PGS) to ensure fairness for small producers. PGS systems are based on farmers peer reviewing each other to ensure the integrity of organic claims rather than being certified by a third-party organization. Most professional groups, such as doctors, lawyers, and scientists, use peer review to ensure the integrity of claims. Farmers should not be an exception. PGS has the advantage of being affordable for smaller farmers, especially in the global south, where third-party certification usually costs more than their annual income.

The world’s largest organic markets, the EU and the US prohibit PGS and make it illegal for these producers to call their products, such as coffee, tea, vanilla, and cocoa, organic.  At the same time, large industrial-scale corporate organic farms can access these markets because they have the economies of scale to afford third-party certification. This is grossly unfair to some of the poorest farmers on the planet.

The exodus of family farms from organic certification, combined with the reluctance of many farmers to be certified organic, has meant they must find another way to label their produce. Many farmers now market their produce using terms like regenerative and agroecological.

Certification systems must be reformed if the organic sector wants to engage these family farmers and avoid being dominated by industrial organic corporations. They need to be simpler, cheaper, and fairer. Group certification systems, especially PGS, are some of the best options to do this.

We must take back standards and certification from governments and agribusiness and have control over them. We must build a new, more significant movement that combines like-minded systems such as Agroecology, Organic Agriculture, and Regenerative Agriculture as the natural alternative to degenerative industrial agriculture.

Regeneration International believes that all agricultural systems should be regenerative, organic, and based on the science of agroecology. We are developing AROES (Agroecological Regenerative Organic Ecosystem Services) as a project that uses organic certification to our AROES standard, which is fit for purpose. Ronnie Cummins and I put a lot of time into this concept.

A significant difference is that we will be paying farmers to be certified. I have spent a lot of time road-testing AROES by giving presentations about this to numerous farmers on every continent. Most stated they would not pay for organic certification. However, when I asked them if we paid them for ecosystem services, they said they were prepared to be certified.

Our AROES standard and certification system will be genuinely regenerative, regenerating the climate, agroecosystems, and communities. In future articles, we will expand on this and explain how it works.

The post Organic Certification as the Basis of Regenerative Agriculture? appeared first on Regeneration International.

As a major report by IPES-Food reveals, today’s land squeeze is escalating dangerously in new and varying forms – including for carbon and biodiversity offsetting schemes, financialisation and speculation, resource grabs, expanding mines and mega-developments, and ever-more industrial food systems. We are seeing a new rush for land that is displacing small-scale farmers, Indigenous Peoples, pastoralists, and rural communities – or removing their control over their land. The consequences are dire, exacerbating rural poverty, food insecurity, and land inequality across the continent – and putting the future of small-scale farming at risk.

Land isn’t just dirt beneath our feet: it’s the bedrock of our food systems keeping us all fed. It is not like any other commodity to be bought and sold. It is the basis of diverse cultures, livelihoods, and rural traditions for millions of Africans. It is a home to biodiversity. Yet, according to the Land Matrix Initiative, Africa is at the forefront of the land grab crisis in the Global South, with nearly 1,000 large-scale land deals for agriculture recorded across the continent since 2000. Mozambique is worst affected with 110 large-scale agricultural land deals, followed by Ethiopia, Cameroon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 

The land rush is not merely for agricultural purposes. This time it’s also being driven by “green grabs” where governments and powerful corporations appropriate land for dubious tree planting, carbon sequestration, and biofuel and green hydrogen schemes (requiring large amounts of water). These activities, masquerading as environmental initiatives, are ultimately bad for climate and sustainability, as they shift the burden for cutting carbon emissions from Global North polluters onto Africa’s lands. They do this while directly threatening the very communities bearing the brunt of climate change by displacing local land users and farmers. Already 20% of large land deals are “green grabs”, often targeting indigenous lands – and this could soar in the coming years. Governments’ pledges for land-based carbon removals worldwide already add up to almost 1.2 billion hectares of land – about as much land as is used to grow crops worldwide today.  

“Green grabs” bring new powerful actors into Africa’s finely balanced land dynamics – creating a dangerous interface between small-scale farmers and rich governments, fossil fuels companies, large conservation groups, and real estate developers. 

Take Blue Carbon, a Dubai-based firm backed by the ruling royal family that is buying up the rights to forests and farmland in order to trade carbon offsets. Blue Carbon has acquired some 25 million hectares of African land through agreements with the governments of five countries: including for 20% of Zimbabwe’s land, 10% of Liberia, and swathes of Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. Pastoralist and indigenous communities are particularly at risk. In Kenya, the forceful relocation of up to 700 members of the Ogiek People has been reported in connection with Blue Carbon’s investments. In Liberia, local leaders have denounced the lack of any consultation since the Memorandum of Understanding was signed. 

The land squeeze also involves rampant encroachment for mining, urbanisation, and mega-developments. Prime agricultural land continues to be lost to rising urbanisation and large-scale infrastructure projects, leading to degradation and loss of biodiversity. 

This is also a problem for our food security. A 2018 report showed that large-scale land deals in Ethiopia and Ghana are forcing smallholder farmers to become wage labourers, downsize onto smaller fragmented plots, or migrate to cities – undermining their ability to feed themselves and their communities. Around 90% of large-scale land deals divert land from local food production to producing biofuels, cash crops for export, mining oil, gas and minerals, or carbon offsetting. The vague terms of these deals exacerbate risks to smallholders and food availability.

The land squeeze is not just an environmental crisis; it’s a fight for justice and survival. This widespread appropriation of land underscores the urgent need for equitable and sustainable land governance across Africa. Transformative action is needed. Policymakers must protect and include local communities as part of climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection, supporting them to steward the land, rather than displacing them. This can be achieved by:

1. Removing speculative capital and financial actors from land markets to get land back into the hands of farmers. This should include capping land acquisitions, giving farmers first right of refusal, and cracking down on bogus land-based carbon offsets.
   
2. Incorporating the Right to Land in countries’ constitutions and environmental and agricultural policies – including in climate plans (Nationally Determined Contributions [NDCs]) and biodiversity strategies. 
3. Establishing inclusive land and food systems governance to halt green grabs and re-centre communities. New mechanisms must place local communities and human rights at the heart of land governance. Democratic spatial planning and accountable land agencies are essential for this.
4. Making community-managed land conversation systems the flagship tool of the Global Biodiversity Framework to meet global biodiversity goals while protecting local food production. 

Africa’s smallholders, pastoralists, and Indigenous communities are the stewards of its land and biodiversity. Their inclusion and empowerment are vital to feeding Africa, as well as to climate action – yet they lack rights and social protections. The powerful new “carbon colonialism” fights the climate crisis against communities rather than with them. 

Bold action and leadership are needed to ensure farmers and communities have meaningful and equitable access to land. Africa’s land is not just an economic asset to be sold to the highest bidder. By empowering local communities and safeguarding their lands, we can pave the way for a sustainable and equitable future for all Africans.

The post Land Grabbing Is Not Just Back With a Vengeance. It Is Taking on New Guises Such As Carbon Offsets, Green Hydrogen Schemes, and Other “Green Grabs”. appeared first on Regeneration International.

Our first standards were simple one—or two-page documents. Organic farmers developed them with extensive experience and knowledge of organic farming systems.

Out of this, the first certification organizations were formed. They were democratic, not-for-profit membership organizations. Our inspectors were other pioneering organic farmers whom we trusted for their knowledge and integrity. We would have an inspection once every two years and submit a signed declaration for the non-inspection years. We used to look forward to our inspectors, as it was time we could learn from them ways to improve our farms and organic production systems.

The worst thing that happened to the organic sector was when governments started regulating it. At the time, we believed that government regulation would protect the sector and stop fraudulent claims and substitutions, so we strongly advocated for it.

Our clear and compelling one and two-page standards became lengthy bureaucratic documents of complex requirements and restrictions. Our inspectors, initially respected fellow farmers, were replaced with auditors prohibited from giving advice.

The certifiers became inflexible bureaucracies that charged high prices for their services. The auditing process assumed that farmers were guilty until they could prove their innocence. The auditors spent less time inspecting the farm and more time inspecting the paperwork.

Initially, certification helped grow the organic sector as it built consumer confidence in the credibility of organic labels. As time passed and more countries enacted their national organic regulations, they became more variable and complex. Inconsistencies began to emerge, with some countries allowing antibiotic use, synthetic feed supplements, and toxic synthetic preservatives. These differences started to cause trade barriers, forcing producers who wanted to export to conform to each country’s regulatory systems and pay the extra costs of multiple certifications. It meant that only the largest operators with economies of scale could export their products as organic. This facilitated the rise of industrial organics.

Many countries were forced to change their national systems to conform to significant markets like Europe and the USA. I remember when Australia enacted an organic export law that complied with the European organic regulation so that a few grain growers could access that market. The rest of us were forced to pay extra for annual audits and comply with complex standards. The cost of certification in terms of time and money increased dramatically, even though most of us didn’t export.

Despite this, Australia had no agreement to export our primary organic produce, meat, because we didn’t have mandatory ‘housing’ for our livestock. We let our animals free range on pasture, eat grass and natural herbage, and allow them to express their natural behaviors. I was shocked when I first visited certified European organic dairy farms and realized the animals—cows, sheep, and buffalos—were confined in barns, stepping in their urine and manure, and fed unnatural grains for long periods. Organic CAFO systems.

The agribusiness cartels continued to hijack organic production systems and ignored the intentions of the standards. The USA had organic agribusiness CAFOs where the animals were confined and never allowed out into pasture. These factory farms deliberately disregarded the standard that mandated animals’ access to pasture. Some agribusiness operations were sued over this; however, they won in court when their high-priced lawyers successfully argued that having a window in the confined factory allowed animals access to pasture. Years were spent developing a new animal husbandry rule that required animals to spend time on pastures. The agribusiness cartels successfully lobbied members of Congress to prevent the new rule from becoming law, allowing massive cruel factory farms to sell their meat, milk, and eggs as organic. The law finally passed. However, there seems to be limited enforcement for them to comply.

The term ‘organic farming’  comes from J.I. Rodale, who popularized the name in the 1940s, He stated that the recycling of organic matter in soil was the basis of the system. Organic farming systems are soil-based systems. This was originally the first part of every organic standard. Initially, the most essential tool an inspector used was a shovel to inspect soil health. When certifiers employed auditors, the most critical tools were a laptop computer and a paper trail audit. Inspecting the soil was utterly neglected.

The ultimate betrayal of our original intentions in certifying organic was the agribusiness industry’s hijacking to get the USDA to approve soil-less organic systems—organic hydroponics. Due to the need for countries to conform to the largest markets, other countries are now approving hydroponics as organic. This has bitterly divided the organic sector. Many people feel that organic regulations and their certification systems have lost credibility.

What was started by us, the pioneer organic family farmers of 50 years, has been hijacked by government bureaucrats and agribusiness cartels.  The trend is that in many parts of the world, the smaller family-owned organic farms have left the certified organic industry, although they still farm organically. The extra costs in money and overly bureaucratic, time-consuming compliance requirements mean that organic certification is not worth it. Consequently, the smaller family farms are being replaced by agribusiness. The trend shows the number of acres is increasing in a faster proportion than the number of farms. This is because large agribusiness corporations are replacing smaller family farms. Organic certification is increasingly becoming dominated by agribusiness.

My own experience is that I decided to stop being certified when I was President of IFOAM – Organics International, the worldwide umbrella body.  After decades of paying fees, I had received no benefits, only costs. I was not the only one in my region. Around the turn of the century (2000), there were 10 certified farmers in our district. I was the 2nd last to give it up. By 2014, no certified farmers were left, although those of us who were still farming called ourselves organic farmers.

The only countries with significant increases in organic family farms are those that allow group certification. This is because it is cost-effective and fair. The bulk of new organic farmers come from India, Mexico, and Uganda, and they are group-certified.

Many countries permit participatory guarantee systems (PGS) to ensure fairness for small producers. PGS systems are based on farmers peer reviewing each other to ensure the integrity of organic claims rather than being certified by a third-party organization. Most professional groups, such as doctors, lawyers, and scientists, use peer review to ensure the integrity of claims. Farmers should not be an exception. PGS has the advantage of being affordable for smaller farmers, especially in the global south, where third-party certification usually costs more than their annual income.

The world’s largest organic markets, the EU and the US prohibit PGS and make it illegal for these producers to call their products, such as coffee, tea, and cocoa, organic.  At the same time, large industrial-scale corporate organic farms can access these markets because they have the economies of scale to afford third-party certification. This is grossly unfair to some of the poorest farmers on the planet.

The exodus of family farms from organic certification, combined with the reluctance of many farmers to be certified organic, has meant they must find another way to label their produce. Many farmers now use terms like Regenerative and Agroecological to market their produce.

Certification systems need to be reformed if the organic sector wants to engage these family farmers and avoid being dominated by industrial organic corporations. They need to be simpler, cheaper, and fairer. Group certification systems, especially PGS, are some of the best options to do this.

The post Group Organic Certification appeared first on Regeneration International.

Additionally, organic standards require animals to have access to outdoor spaces and mandate strict regulations on their feed, prohibiting antibiotics and growth hormones. This labeling assures consumers that the meat they purchase comes from animals raised in conditions prioritizing natural inputs and animal welfare. While organic labeling assures certain standards, it may only partially reflect a holistic approach to sustainable meat production.

Regenerative agriculture represents a paradigm shift in sustainable farming practices. It transcends the limitations of organic certification by prioritizing principles aimed at restoring ecosystems, enhancing soil fertility, and building resilience against environmental challenges.

KEEP READING ON CIWF

The post Growing Greener: Organic Farming Vs. Regenerative Agriculture appeared first on Regeneration International.

The post Webinar: Ancient Wheat: The Old Grain with Prospects appeared first on Regeneration International.

The post Defining “Regenerative Agriculture” in California appeared first on Regeneration International.

Regeneration International was one of the organizers of these events in partnership with Navdanya International, the Organic Consumers Association, Vía Orgánica, and Sin Maíz No País.

On March 15, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources hosted a scientific forum on the “Protection and conservation of biodiversity in the regions considered as centers of origin of species.” Dr. Shiva was the keynote speaker, and Dr. André Leu was the following speaker on the importance of conserving both agricultural and endemic biodiversity.

Caption: Dr. Vandana Shiva (Navdanya), Dr. André Leu (RI), and Karen Hansen (IATP) speaking at The Department of Environment and Natural Resources hosted a scientific forum

The following day, March 16, was a well-attended public event with many speakers. Dr. Shiva gave the closing keynote address to a very receptive and appreciative crowd. Dr. Mercedes Lopez, from Vía Orgánica, gave a rousing speech on the importance of maize to Mexican culture and the need to not contaminate the traditional varieties with GMOs, as this would destroy the fact that Mexico is the center of origin and diversity for this critical food staple.

Caption: Dr. Mercedes Lopez speaking at the well-attended public event on March 16

I spoke on the risks and damages associated with transgenic corn and glyphosate, presenting scientific evidence of the harm it is causing to human health.

Caption: Dr. Andre Leu from Regeneration International Speaking at the public event

I was one of the many scientists who assisted Mexico in developing a science-based case against US bullying, which aimed to force them to reverse their decision to ban glyphosate and GMO maize.

US Government Poison Cartels Puppets Bully Mexico over its Sovereign Right to Ban Glyphosate and GMO Corn

Mexico announced plans to ban glyphosate and GMO Maize in 2023. Bayer-Monsanto and Dow launched 43 lawsuits in Mexico attempting to overturn the presidential decree.

The GMO/pesticide cartels, fearing that Mexico will set a precedent for other countries to enact similar restrictions, are puppeteering agencies and officials within the U.S. government to pressure Mexico to abandon its plans. This is not the first time the German-based Bayer-Monsanto has used its captured U.S. government officials and agencies to act on its behalf. In 2019, the corporation succeeded in using U.S. officials to pressure Thailand to reverse its ban on glyphosate.

According to Reuters, the new U.S. agriculture trade chief, Doug McKalip, gave Mexico until February 14, 2024, to respond to the U.S. demand to justify the science behind the GMO maize and glyphosate ban.

Mexico responded in March by releasing a formal rebuttal of U.S. efforts to overturn their ban.

The government produced an 189-page scientific report stating, “Mexico has legitimate concerns about the safety and innocuousness of genetically modified corn … and its indissoluble relationship with its technological package that includes glyphosate,” the government’s report states. It showed evidence that the use of pesticides causes serious health effects.

Mexico states that there is “clear scientific evidence of the harmful effects of direct consumption of GM corn grain in corn flour, dough, tortillas and related products.”

The Scientific Evidence That Justifies Mexico Banning GMOs and Glyphosate

There are an enormous number of published scientific studies showing that GMOs and their associated pesticides are responsible for multiple serious health problems for people, animals, and the wider environment.

The widespread adoption of GMO crops in the U.S. has resulted in a massive increase in the application of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as the primary method of weed control.

The Only Credible Peer-reviewed Lifetime of GMOs and Roundup

Only one credible, independent, non-industry funded, peer-reviewed lifetime feeding study of GMOs and Roundup exists. It found that mammary and other tumors, liver and kidney damage resulting from regular exposure to minute amounts of Roundup and/or a diet containing GMO corn – similar to the typical exposures people get from food.

The image above shows a rat with large mammary tumors caused by consuming glyphosate at the usual levels found in food. The tumors on the right-hand side, starting from the top, result from eating GMO corn, GMO corn with Roundup, or just Roundup. (Seralini et al.)

All the female rats in the study that were fed GMOs and/or Roundup (Treated Group) developed mammary tumors and died earlier than the rats who were fed non-GMO food without Roundup (Control Group), except for one rat who died early of an ovarian tumor.

Treated males presented four times the number of tumors that were large enough to be felt by hand than the controls, and these occurred up to six hundred days earlier.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has given glyphosate the second-highest rating for Cancer – Group 2A.

This means it causes cancer in animals and has some evidence of cancer in humans, most notably non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

A study by Flower et al. examined the levels of cancer in the children of people who sprayed glyphosate for weed control. They found that these children had increased levels of all childhood cancers, including all lymphomas, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

A case-controlled study by Swedish scientists Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson also linked non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to exposure to various pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate. The link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has resulted in significant court cases, most of which Bayer-Monsanto has lost and awarded millions of dollars to the victims.

Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate, and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

Dr. Nancy Swanson, myself, and co-authors Jon Abrahamson and Bradley Wallet published a peer-reviewed paper, “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” showing how glyphosate and GMOs are linked to over 20 diseases in the U.S. The study searched US government databases for genetically engineered crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data. This was correlated with numerous diseases linked to the increased use of glyphosate and GMOs. A standard accepted statical analysis showed that the odds of glyphosate and GMOs not being the cause of these diseases was 10,000 to 1. On top of these, numerous studies are confirming the link between GMOs and glyphosate with these diseases.

We compiled this data into graphs showing the increase in diseases, glyphosate, and GMOs. We also added trend lines in green to show that these diseases are increasing due to the increased use of genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy and glyphosate.

Autism and Dementia

Autism and dementia have reached epidemic proportions in the U.S. The gap below clearly shows the link between the massive increase in the use of glyphosate and GMOs since the 1990s and the increase in these diseases.

Researchers have shown how exposure to minute amounts of glyphosate damages the normal development of nerves.

The image above shows how glyphosate damages nerve development. The glyphosate-exposed cells had shorter and unbranched axons, (the long extended ‘arms’ of the nerve) and less complex dendritic arbors (the smaller ‘fingers’ coming out of the body of the cell). It is clear from the image that the cells exposed to glyphosate do not develop properly and, therefore, cannot work effectively.

The scientists identified the cause by which glyphosate affects nerve development and stated that it cannot be reversed. The major concern is that the brain is the largest collection of nerves in the human body and is still developing in unborn, newborn, and growing children. Exposure to small amounts of glyphosate in food can adversely affect the brain’s normal development, leading to the suite of major issues that we see in children, such as autism spectrum, bipolar spectrum, ADHD, and other developmental and behavioral issues.

Adult brains are constantly renewing brain cells. These nerve cells are also adversely affected by glyphosate. The graph above shows a very strong link between the increase in glyphosate and deaths from dementia.

Endocrine Disruption – Disruption to Hormones

Gasnier et al. reported endocrine-disrupting actions of glyphosate at 0.5 ppm. According to the authors, this is “800 times lower than the level authorized in some food or feed (400 ppm, USEPA, 1998).”

Professor Séralini’s study published in Environmental Sciences Europe found that both GM maize and Roundup act as endocrine disrupters, and their consumption resulted in female rats dying –at a rate two to three times higher than the control animals. The pituitary gland was the second most disabled organ and the sex hormonal balance was modified in females fed with the GMO and Roundup treatments.

Disruption of Metabolic Pathways

One of the most significant studies was published by Samsel and Seneff in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Entropy in 2013. This comprehensive review, titled “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” showed how glyphosate disrupted numerous biochemical pathways within the human body, including gut microorganisms, and consequently could lead to numerous diseases.

Studies show that disruptions of the normal hormone and metabolic pathways are major causes of obesity, in that they disrupt the normal control mechanisms that stop overeating. Science clearly shows that glyphosate is one of these chemicals.

Diabetes

The rise in diabetes is directly linked to obesity. Most obese people end up with diabetes due to overloading the hormonal mechanisms that regulate blood sugar. Over time they begin to fail, resulting in dangerous increases in blood sugar.

Disruption of the Gut Microbiome

Samsel and Seneff’s paper identified how glyphosate disrupted the gut microbiome, causing the suppression of biosynthesis of cytochrome P450 enzymes and key amino acids. In a later paper, “Glyphosate, Pathways to Modern Diseases II: Celiac Sprue and Gluten Intolerance,” Samsel and Seneff showed that the current increase in celiac disease and gluten intolerance in people was linked to glyphosate’s adverse effects on the gut microbiome. They highlighted that glyphosate is patented as a biocide, and consequently, it kills the beneficial gut bacteria, leading to a rise in intestinal diseases.

Krüger et al. showed that glyphosate affects the microbiome of horses and cows. Shehata et al. found the same effects in poultry; the researchers state, “Highly pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella Entritidis, Salmonella Gallinarum, Salmonella Typhimurium, Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium botulinum are highly resistant to glyphosate. However, most of beneficial bacteria as Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus badius, Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus spp. were found to be moderate to highly susceptible.” Both groups of researchers postulated that glyphosate is associated with the increase in botulism-mediated diseases in these domestic farm animals.

Inflammatory bowel diseases are rising along with deaths from intestinal infections. Glyphosate’s disruption of the gut microbiome must be seen as a significant cause.

Kidney and Liver Disease

Kidney and liver diseases are major chronic diseases. The graph below clearly shows the relationship between GMOs, glyphosate, and the rapid increase in deaths from kidney disease in the U.S. Deaths from kidney disease fell until the widespread increase of glyphosate and GMOs.

In the lifetime feeding study of rats conducted by Séralini et al. the treated males displayed liver congestions and necrosis at rates 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than the controls, as well as marked and severe kidney nephropathies (kidney damage) at rates generally 1.3 to 2.3 greater than the controls.

The image above shows kidneys and livers that have been damaged by Roundup (glyphosate), GMO corn, and both. In a later published study designed to understand why Roundup and glyphosate-based herbicides caused kidney and liver damage in rats, scientists discovered that ultra-low doses of these herbicides disrupted numerous genes’ functions, resulting in changes consistent with multiple kidney and liver disease problems.

The researchers stated, “Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH (glyphosate-based herbicides) in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.”

Conclusion

Science shows that GMOs and glyphosate cause multiple chronic severe diseases in the United States. Instead of bullying Mexico to accept these dangerous products, the U.S. regulatory authorities should do their jobs to protect the American people from the harm they cause by banning them.

The post Dr. Vandana Shiva and Regeneration International Support Mexico appeared first on Regeneration International.