Agronomi

Our food and farming system is not socially, economically or ecologically sustainable. Many of the ills are a result of market competition driving specialization and linear production models, externalizing costs for environmental, social and cultural degradation. Some propose that market mechanisms should be used to correct this; improved consumer choice, internalization of costs and compensation to farmers for public goods. But what we eat is determined by the path taken by our ancestors, by commercialization and fierce competition, fossil fuels and demographic development. Based on those, governments and the food industry are the choice architects who determine what we eat; consumer choice plays a marginal role. Using market mechanisms to internalize cost and compensate farmers for public goods has been proposed for decades but little progress has been made. There are also many practical, ethical and theoretical objections to such a system. The market is not a good master for a sustainable food system. Instead we need to find new ways of managing the food system based on food as a right and farming as a management system of the planet Earth. The solutions should be based on relocalization of food production and de-commodification of food and our symbionts, the plants and animals we eat.

The goal of this report is to give guidance to the development of appropriate policies for the organic
sector. Its focus is mainly developing countries, particularly in East Africa, but much of it is also
applicable for developed countries. The report gives some general background about organic
agriculture and the reasons to support the development of organic agriculture. These are among
others: 
• Protection of natural resources (e.g. water) and biodiversity;
• Improved quality of soils and thereby a long-term high productivity;
• Improved market access;
• Improved profitability in farming; and
• Improved health or reduced health risks for farmers, farm-workers and consumers.

The romantic ideal of small organic farms providing everyone with healthy natural food is impossible on a planet of seven billion people, soon to be nine or ten billion, argues Jayson Lusk in his new book, BUnnaturally delicious: how science and technology are serving up super foods to save the world.^In his view, not only is it impossible, it is also not desirable as it would mean that we reject the multiple benefits that the modern food system already has given us. And, there is a lot more to come if we embrace modern food technology. Lusk presents the readers with stories how innovation and technology have found new solutions for, among others, production of eggs, 3-D food printing, robot cooks, synthetic biology, food fortification, genetic engineering, precision farming, meat tissue culture, and food safety. We can do better, says Lusk. We do not have to choose between prohibitively expensive organic eggs and eggs from hens held in miniscule cages. Instead, we can design smart cages that combine the industrial scale with better consideration of the needs of the hen. Smart cages are just an example of how technology can solve most of our problems. BSustainability and using agricultural technology is one and the same,^he states boldly. Lusk deconstructs the idea of natural foods; everything we eat is the result of hundreds or thousands of years of unnatural selection: BBroccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, and kale didn't exist before humans came along. All these veggies are descendants of the same plant, and they originated through artificial selection.^In the same vein, he argues that genetically modified organisms are simply the next step in this humanmanaged evolution. Through biotechnology, we will create super foods and at the same time save the environment. Resisting those and other opportunities is unethical in his view: BTechnological development in food and agriculture can help us meet moral imperatives, such as helping the least fortunate among us.^Lusk states that the main obstacle to success is that the precautionary principle is taken too far. We need to consider