MARKETING AND POLITICAL DECEPTIONS IN AGRICULTURE.
Anyone who is keen to support the environment quickly discovers that large and small companies have caught on and many of them try to sell products and services implying qualities they don’t have or blatantly making false statements. There is an illustration in my book ‘Radical Soil Care’ called ‘The Truth’ (p. 44). It shows a roadmap on how to find out what is truly needed for soil health, discern third party interests and keep those bastards honest. This roadmap is based on two core questions:
- Does the service/product support soil organic matter and soil biology? If so, how?
- Does the service/product treat a symptom or the root cause?
The answers provide some indicators but I find that blatant lies and straight deceptions become more common. Here are some examples and the list is by no means complete.
In marketing many words are used to imply certain properties of the product or services, with the word ‘natural’ among them. It is used regularly to give the impression that something is harmless. Yet, some of the most toxic substances on the planet are in fact natural.
The most lethal toxic substance known to man is botulinum toxin produced by an anaerobic bacteria called clostridium botulinum (BTX) . BTX can be foodborne, causing botulism – and is entirely natural. Deathcaps, webcaps and autumns scullcaps are all highly toxic mushrooms. The yellow staining mushroom grows on our doorstep here in Victoria and caused some fatalities in Leongatha not long ago – they are entirely natural, and so are arsenic and cyanide.
Recently I discovered a bottle of herbicides containing the active constituent glyphosate with the label ‘natural’ supported by the image of two ladybugs.
‘Natural’ is by no means an equivalent to harmless and the word has no legal bearing on the product and its properties. It is simply verbiage and can get used in any way an advertiser sees fit.
The same is valid for the prefixes ‘eco’ or ‘bio’ used to imply ‘eco’-friendly qualities – pun absolutely intended.
Herbicides and pesticides require a safety data sheet (SDS), which is legally binding. They often directly contradict the marketing material of the same product clearly uncovering their statements as lies. Despite the legal obligation to provide a SDS for any hazardous product they are usually well hidden on the manufacturer’s website and regularly require an online search.
The word ‘organic’ is not regulated here in Australia either. The term ‘certified organic’ however has legal ramifications. It can only get used when a rigorous auditing process has been completed and proven that the product has been produced according to strict organic and biodynamic standards.
Other terms without their implications matching the facts are ‘biodegradable’ and ‘compostable’. See the prefix ‘bio’? Would there really be a difference between degradable and biodegradable? It is just about appearances here, not substance, again more verbiage. Everything on the planet degrades, buildings and even my car, it is just a matter of time. So again the word is descriptive without substance. Both terms imply that the product, usually packaging material like shopping bags, yoghurt tubs etc., is safe for the environment.
IT IS IMPLIED, AND OFTEN STATED VERBATIM, THAT THE MATERIALS ARE SAFE TO COMPOST AND THAT THEY DISAPPEAR AFTER A WHILE IN LANDFILL. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
A quote from my book ‘Radical Soil Care’: ‘A citizen science assessment has been done in the UK about composting plastic bags. (…) They mostly degrade, but they don’t decompose. They degrade into tiny plastic particles, which will ultimately end up as microplastics in our waterways.’ In an article by Dr Joseph Mercola, it states that the average American ingests weekly 5g of microplastics, an amount equivalent to a credit card and microplastic was found in the male reproductive system, including the testis and semen. Furthermore, plastics are loaded with chemicals that are xenoestrogens that can mimic the effects of oestrogen in your body.
The statement that herbicides and other poisonous substances disintegrate into natural components is frequently used and is not only misleading but entirely inconsequential. The damage is done BEFORE the substances start to disintegrate; and then there is the word ‘natural’ again. Plus, if it were true and they were breaking down as promised, we would not find residues of them in our foods or bodies. You find here two of the many articles attesting to that.
Some recent advertising campaigns state that particular herbicides are actually good for soil biology, which is simply ludicrous. Everybody who is familiar with succession plants can read soil biology by the plants that grow. The plants emerging after the application of ‘soil-biology-safe herbicides’ speak their own language clearly demonstrating that the statement is entirely false. There is more information about succession plants in my book ‘Radical Soil Care’.
Then there is the political misappropriation of concepts like soil carbon, regenerative agriculture, permaculture etc. Fabulous concepts in their own right yet often taken out of context, combined with some half truths and attached to a political narrative.
MADE CONDITIONAL FOR FUNDING THEY ARE OFTEN DEEMED THE ONLY POLITICALLY CORRECT ‘TRUTH’ WHILE DISALLOWING A ROBUST DISCUSSION, CONVERTING THEM FROM AN ECOLOGICAL CONCEPT TO A POLITICAL ONE. VERY SMART!!
Marketing specialists know how to take advantage of insecurities and dress false information as fact, backed up by ‘studies’ funded by exactly those very corporations or government departments.
There are many things between heaven and earth that serve soil biology – never do they come out of a lab, they won’t follow a political narrative, fit into funding requirements nor can be squeezed into a form for grant applications. Often these many things are simple, a slight bit or very dirty and smelly, require some work and are easy to understand if one is willing to think outside the box. Rarely to be found on a shelf of a department store but can be cheaply derived, often with creativity from our own properties, once soil biology is understood.
Trying to measure the outcome to justify funding is flawed, as the focus on one or two aspects of complex symbiotic systems leads to tunnel vision and attempts to micromanage Nature, often causing harm due to silo thinking – another chapter in my book.
Nature has got this, and stepping out of the way and supporting her rather than make her fit into political world views, is a first step.
It is time to let regenerative land stewards do their thing without having to justify, explain and defend themselves and having to pay for expensive certifications. Even more importantly it is time that users of any chemical concoctions pay their dues for abusing the land and destroying soil biology. Let’s withdraw government funding from organisations generously using and promoting the use of herbicides and pesticides, thus levelling the playing field.
In my book ‘Radical Soil Care’ I introduce a roadmap, a method to discern what is true for soil biology and what isn’t, and how far we really have to go down rabbit holes spiked with smoke and mirrors to find our answers. Asking questions and using our own senses including the common one, making our own observations and deduct from there. We can ask the worms or our own body through biofeedback if substances are benign or better avoided. I introduce some methods in my article ‘Ask Our Body For Advice’.
FOLLOWING THE MONEY AND CHECKING OUT WHERE FUNDING IS COMING FROM KEEPS THE BASTARDS HONEST.