Good Friday to you all

Started mine by listening to Vandana Shiva spell it out, again, in words of splendid simplicity, on CBC's The Current. The poverty and suffering inflicted by globalised trade - poor countries unable to compete with subsidised imports from wealthy countries; massive Indian farmer suicides caused by industrial debt; the destructive nature of fuel-based agriculture; and the madness of growing crops to feed livestock or fuel cars (and subsidised commodities) while people are starving..

And she referred to the IAASTD report on the future of world farming, a year after the release of its 2500 page report, compiled by 400 scientists from 64 countries (including Canada). Its findings were never ratified by our noble country, not surprisingly since they state pretty plainly that if the world is to be fed, we must radically change farming policies and practices: large-scale industrial (fossil-fuel-based) farming, agricultural subsidies and GM do not work as a sustainable way to feed the world. In a nutshell, small-scale organic farming is the way forward.

Can't wait till she rocks the G8 in July this year; as we were told by Carlo Petrini, an invitation has been extended by this year's Italian presidency of the group, to have a presentation to G8 leaders by Terra Madre.. and surely Vandana must be the first voice in food sanity. They will have a chance to hear, and we must hope they listen.

Here's an amazing poem by Alaskan poet Olena Kalytiak Davis.

Global food & expensive wine

I just stopped myself from cheering when I read a newspaper report about global food and farming in an English paper on the plane ride home. The very next day A Friend (thank you, friend) sent me a link to The Guardian's coverage of the piece. Since the report's release on April 15, it's also been in the New York Times, Le Monde, der Spiegel and many others. But as of Thursday, there does not appear to be any coverage at all of this story in the Canadian press, other than a brief preview on the CBC news site. Perhaps it will break soon.

The report is a 2500 page plan for a global agriculture capable of seeing the world through the next 50 years. The study was the result of five years' work by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD for merciful short) with input from some 400 experts; the organisation is funded by participating countries and by a serious group of international agencies (FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO).

The report concluded that neither genetically-modified crops nor industrial food production are workable ways to feed the world; that the only way forward is to employ methods such as organic and small-scale agriculture. It must surely by now seem obvious to most of us, and is thankfully proposed in this report, that to survive in the world as it now is, we must grow our food sustainably: in ways that are less dependent on fossil fuels; make use of locally available resources, natural fertilizers and traditional seeds; and aim to preserve the soil and water supply. The report is critical of the whole biofuel madness: as we are already seeing, using food crops for biofuels is only going to worsen food shortages and price rises.

It should surprise no one that in light of these findings, Australia, the United States and Canada are the countries questioning some of the language in the report's concerns about biotechnology, especially genetically modified foods. But these are the very countries which must make immediate changes if the world is to feed itself. So.... what happens next?

Summaries of the report are here, on the IAASTD's website , and there is "a faithful summary of the leading scientific report" on GreenFacts. Unesco has some information and there are presentations and documents of all shapes and sizes about the report on the IAASTD's Press Materials page.

Meanwhile, an interesting study of wine-drinking concludes that expensive wines do not bring more pleasure to drinkers unless they know what the price tag says. Although it concedes that educated palates do not find a negative correlation between wine and costliness, this overall trend - that expensive wine is actually less enjoyable if you don't know what it costs - was revealed after more than 6,000 blind tastings were analysed by the American Association of Wine Economists.