We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
COP28: Why farmers need to be front and center in climate talks
Agriculture is the foundation of human civilization, the economic activity that makes every other endeavor possible. But historically, says International Fertilizer Association Director General Alzbeta Klein, the subject hasn't received attention in climate talks.
"It took us 23 climate conferences to start thinking about agriculture," she said during a GZERO Live event organized by the Sustainability Leaders Council, a partnership between Eurasia Group, GZERO Media, and Suntory. "The problem is that we don't know how to feed ourselves without a huge impact on the environment."
The good news is, leaders are catching on to the notion that a holistic approach is the only way forward.
Watch the full livestream conversation: The global water crisis and the path to a sustainable future
- Controversies at COP28 and the future of climate change ›
- COP28 climate talks complicated by UAE oil deals ›
- Hunger Pains: The growing global food crisis ›
- Who's to blame for sky-high food prices? ›
- Hunger Pains: The Growing Global Food Crisis - GZERO Media ›
- COP28’s challenge: growing problems, shrinking credibility ›
Water is food, so use solutions to conserve water, says expert Alzbeta Klein
"We often say water is life," says Alzbeta Klein, Director General of the International Fertilizer Association. "And I'd like to add to it: water is food." She spoke at a GZERO Live event organized by the Sustainability Leaders Council, a partnership between Eurasia Group, GZERO Media, and Suntory, exploring the emerging issue of water insecurity.
Some 90% of the world's freshwater is used to grow food, meaning that every single drop that can be saved through more efficient uses of water and fertilizer in farming represents one step closer to ensuring all human beings have safe, fresh water to drink.
Watch the full livestream conversation: The global water crisis and the path to a sustainable future
Pesticides being sprayed on a field
Are pesticides the problem?
On Tuesday, Oct. 3, more than 600 US cinemas will air a new film, “Into the Weeds: Dewayne “Lee” Johnson vs. Monsanto Company,” for one night only. The movie by award-winning director, Jennifer Baichwal, centers on the agrochemical giant Monsanto and the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup. It follows lawsuits, specifically the one brought by Lee Johnson, that allege Monsanto buried evidence that its product was carcinogenic even as it was being sued by thousands of cancer patients who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using their products.
Johnson developed cancer after using herbicide at his job as a groundskeeper, and his and other cases sought to answer one question: Does glyphosate, the active ingredient in herbicide, cause cancer in humans?
The farm bill currently up for renewal has a potential provision known as the EATS Act that would prevent state or local governments from implementing pesticide and other agriculture regulations. GZERO talked to Baichwal and Johnson ahead of next Tuesday’s airing of the film about what’s at stake.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Riley Callanan: Your trial became the basis of a mass tort case involving tens of thousands of people suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma because of exposure to glyphosate. It also led to countries like Malawi, Vietnam, and the UAE outlawing the herbicide. Did you have any idea that your experience was shared with so many other people or would have such a global impact?
Dewayne “Lee” Johnson: When I first heard about glyphosate, I was just taking the classes to become licensed as a groundskeeper, and the people that trained me said glyphosate was safe enough to drink. That's why we can spray it around schools.
But I had met other people. I knew other applicators like me who saw cancer as a part of the job. But then when I told my job that I had probably got cancer from being in contact with glyphosate from the Ranger Pro that I was applying, they didn’t believe it. Even the doctors and nurses didn't believe it.
But I like to say, I am the one leaf that didn't die. All those leaves that I killed with that product, I watched what it did, I've watched how it works. And my lawyers had scientific proof, and then they found deeper evidence from emails from Monsanto that showed that they knew it wasn’t safe.
My case was the bellwether. It was the case that made it okay for the rest of those cases to be heard.
Callanan: Jennifer, this is your tenth documentary, and your latest works – from “Manufactured Landscapes” to “The Anthropocene Project” – have investigated how humanity is reshaping the planet. Now, “Into the Weeds” is uncovering how corporate denialism can cause immense harm. How did you decide to make this film?
Jennifer Baichwal: The film is really about Lee Johnson’s story and the trust that he put in us to tell that story. But the other issues raised in the film are corporate malfeasance, the limitations of mass tort as a tool for justice, biodiversity loss, and systemic implications of pesticide use, but also agency capture [when regulatory agencies tasked with protecting public interest become unduly influenced by industry].
Agent capture is a problem that happens everywhere. And the irony is that in any other context, it would be an obvious conflict of interest for the revolving door that goes between people who go work for chemical companies and then go work for the EPA.
But the EPA, in particular, like many organizations in Canada, and also in Europe and around the world, doesn’t have the money to do their own studies. So they use the industry studies – and so there's a lack of independent research.
To me, it is obviously a massive issue for democracy. But it's also an issue about corporate control, corporate lobbying, and the kind of power that comes from money. The year that the International Association for Research on Cancer declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen, Monsanto had a public affairs budget of $16 or $17 million just to discredit that finding.
And when I learned all this and heard about Lee’s case, it was like, how could we not tell this story for the historical record of what a David vs. Goliath fight like this actually is?
Callanan: The story of glyphosate harkens back to DDT for me, which was also considered safe, and then we discovered its carcinogenic qualities. We learned it killed way more than just weeds and pests but cleared out every kind of insect and disrupted ecosystems from the top down. In the making of your film, did you discover that glyphosate had a larger environmental impact?
Baichwal: Absolutely. Glyphosate is used in forest plantations. These are monoculture forest plantations of pine and spruce, where glyphosate herbicide is sprayed to kill all of the broadleaf species, so they don't compete for the light when the saplings are small.
What happens in those places – they're not forests, they’re sterile because everything goes away. And there's nothing else. You don't hear the insects. There aren't birds. The animals go. And of course, we know about this because we are working with indigenous groups, especially on unceded territory, where these forest plantations are sprayed without any consultation, without getting any agreement from these people. So glyphosate has a huge effect on everything else.
So many countries have pledged to preserve 50% of the world's biodiversity by 2030. But there has been no plan, like there's no roadmap for doing that. And when we were talking about top-down change, one of the most efficient and easiest ways of protecting biodiversity is by limiting pesticide and herbicide use around the world.
Callanan: But glyphosate has deeply infiltrated our food system, both from farmers spraying it and because consumers like having cheap food at the grocery store. How disruptive would a ban on glyphosate containing agricultural products be?
Baichwal: It's the whole system of how agriculture is organized in the United States, Canada, and around the world that has to be changed. It's like the metaphor of the frog in hot water. If you drop it in when it's boiling, it’ll jump out. But if you slowly turn the heat up, it will get used to it and die.
We're accepting all of these health problems. We're accepting all of this destruction to our environment, because we've gotten used to a model that is wrong and unnecessary, in my opinion. 80% of Americans have traces of glyphosate in their urine.
There are a lot of regenerative organic farmers who can't get insurance for their products because of the power of the agro-chemical industry. It's like, well, if you're not using GM, then you could lose half your crop.
We need regenerative organic agriculture, and I say organic because regenerative is used a lot in a greenwashing way. But organic regenerative farming is polyculture farming where you have crops that sit together, and by rotating and putting things together you reduce weeds naturally. Those are viable ways of producing enough food.
What we have to do is get to a place where organic is not considered to be elitist and expensive. And the more that people demand that kind of food, the more that farmers actually can get support to grow that kind of food.
Callanan: Speaking of insurance and agriculture regulation, do you have any thoughts on the upcoming farm bill and the EATS Act that would make banning pesticides like glyphosate a lot harder for states?
Baichwal: If this bill passes, it will be incredibly destructive because it will mean that states can't make up their own minds about whether to use pesticides. Mr. Johnson's case wouldn't have gone to trial if this bill was in effect. After [his] case, there were many schoolgrounds in the Bay Area and in Northern California that stopped using glyphosate and roundup on their grounds. They decided to do that collectively, but they would not be allowed to do that anymore. So these issues are really, really important.
To learn how you can see the film, click here.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Brazilian counterpart Jair Bolsonaro attend a news conference following talks in Moscow.
For Latin America, political risks overshadow economic gain from Ukraine crisis
Countries that rely heavily on imported food and energy face the greatest risk of social and economic crises from the disruption caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet even those that are themselves big producers of these essential commodities are suffering fallout from the war. Rising prices for basic goods in many parts of Latin America, for example, are testing governments already struggling to manage elevated public frustration caused by pandemic hardships. We asked Eurasia Group expert Yael Sternberg to explain how this is playing out.
What has the initial impact been in the region?
Though countries such as Brazil and Colombia are large food producers, they are now having difficulties obtaining the Russian and Ukrainian fertilizers they have come to rely on. Similarly, though the region has large reserves of crude oil, it obtains much of its supply of diesel, gasoline, and other fuels from European refineries. As these companies shun Russian oil, they have less diesel and gasoline to sell to Latin America. Argentina is already suffering from an acute shortage of diesel, an essential fuel in the transportation and agricultural industries. The same problem is looming for Brazil.
What will the economic and political consequences be?
Latin America is still reeling from the economic hit of the pandemic, which exacerbated inequalities and fueled rapid inflation. The fallout from the Ukraine crisis is ratcheting up inflationary pressures again as higher prices for fertilizers and fuels drive up the cost of food and other goods. Wary of unrest, leaders are offering subsidies for many of these items despite already strained state finances. Many are also backtracking on plans to rein in pandemic-era stimulus programs. Chile and El Salvador have both announced new support plans in recent weeks that include subsidies and tax breaks. The Chilean administration was able to integrate its plan into the framework of its already approved 2022 budget. But El Salvador, which already plans on using a controversial funding strategy of issuing bonds denominated in Bitcoin, will face more difficulties financing the new spending.
Has there been unrest?
Yes. Argentina and Peru have both experienced significant bouts of unrest. Activists camped out recently on Buenos Aires’s main avenue to demand greater social spending, and Argentine truckers led a nationwide strike in response to rising diesel prices. Peru has erupted in even more violent demonstrations across the country over rising inflation, prompting President Pedro Castillo to impose a 24-hour curfew in the capital city of Lima only to revoke it hours later, further evidencing his erratic policymaking tendencies and lack of experience. The crisis comes at a bad time for Castillo, who is struggling to hold on to power after two impeachment attempts.
Is there a silver lining in the rising prices for the commodities the region produces?
Latin America is a big exporter of agricultural goods, oil and many metals, so higher international prices for these items will buoy local producers and generate more tax revenue for governments. Ecuador, for example, has benefited from higher oil revenue. Yet, as mentioned, local consumers will suffer from higher prices, creating pressures on cash-strapped governments to cushion the blow. So, while higher commodity prices have boosted some countries’ revenue, the downside in terms of political risk will be greater.
How are these developments likely to affect upcoming elections?
Like the pandemic, the effects of the Ukraine conflict and resulting inflation shock have exacerbated political headwinds for incumbents and added momentum to a leftward shift in the region’s politics. This means trouble for Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who faces an uphill battle for reelection in October against former leftwing president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and an added boost for Colombia’s Gustavo Petro ahead of May elections there. Polling suggests that Petro is on track to become Colombia’s first leftist president.
What are the geopolitical consequences in terms of relations with Russia, China, and the US?
Most countries in the region are aligning with the US, except for those that abstained from March’s UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion. These included the leftist-run countries Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua in addition to an apparent outlier: the populist-run El Salvador. President Nayib Bukele now seems to be orienting himself towards Russia and has taken to social media to attack the US’s credibility on the crisis — potentially in a bid to bolster crypto as a financing prospect and adding to his already confrontational relationship with the Biden administration. Other countries that have maintained good relations with Russia in the past — including Brazil and Argentina — now face pressure to tread carefully if they want to avoid diplomatic and economic repercussions from the US and Europe. Additionally, if Western sanctions push Russia (even) closer to China, Beijing’s interest in solidifying economic ties to Latin America is likely to grow given China’s broad economic diplomacy efforts and attractive financing offers for many leftist leaders in the region.
- Moisés Naim: With inflation & low trust in democracy, Latin America faces perfect storm for nasty politics - GZERO Media ›
- Colombia's new president: Biden team aware the war on drugs has failed - GZERO Media ›
- Colombia's new president: Biden team aware the war on drugs has failed - GZERO Media ›
- Colombia's new president Gustavo Petro: Biden team aware the war on drugs has failed - GZERO Media ›
Carrots are dumped into a carrot washing machine at a farm in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Hard Numbers: India needs non-agri investment, American women lag behind, WFH forever, Iranian job woes
90: India will need to create 90 million new non-agricultural jobs by 2030 to reach its economic potential, according to McKinsey. The pandemic drove tens of millions out of cities to work in farming back in their villages, but economists now say that the government needs to boost urban production to maximize growth.
63: The US economy has shed millions of jobs since March 2020, with female workers accounting for 63% of the lost gigs, according to the National Women’s Law Center.
91: A whopping 91% of Iranians surveyed say they feel negative about their local job markets. The Iranian labor market continues to be strangled by tough economic sanctions, but if a nuclear deal is reached in the near term, employment opportunities and industry will expand significantly, experts say.
59: Two years into the pandemic, 59% of Americans who can work from home say they are doing so all or most of the time. Before the pandemic, 23% said they worked from home frequently.Farmers block expressway to protest against Modi's new laws
•KUNDLI (India) • Tens of thousands of farmers on tractors occupied a stretch of an expressway on the periphery of the Indian capital New Delhi yesterday in one of the biggest shows of strength since they began a sit-in against deregulation of farm markets more than a month ago.
Farmers block expressway near Indian capital to protest Modi's new laws
KUNDLI, INDIA (REUTERS) - Tens of thousands of farmers on tractors occupied a stretch of an expressway on the periphery of the Indian capital New Delhi on Thursday (Jan 7) in one of the biggest shows of strength since they began a sit-in against deregulation of farm markets more than a month ago.
Indian farmers step up pressure with hunger strike against agricultural reforms
Small growers fear that the changes will mean the end of price support for staples and leave them at the mercy of big business