New UN report baffles critics of organic fertilizers


Those who simmer against the principled policy of organic fertilizers, which replace the chemicals we are used to, should read the latest UN report on agricultural subsidies.

A new UN study castigates the agricultural subsidies that are pumped into the dairy industry in developed countries and for chemical fertilizers and insecticides in developing countries.

Nearly 90 percent of the $ 540 billion in global subsidies granted to farmers each year are “harmful,” writes a terrifying UN report, writes the Guardian’s environmental editor. This is the fat end of the global subsidy company, which is generously injected with money every year to stimulate industrialized agriculture – “big farma”, if you will.

The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) has castigated organic fertilizer policy, and various experts have railed against it from the safety of their air-conditioned office cubicles in urban dystopia.

Support for the “oversized” meat and dairy industries in rich countries must be reduced, while subsidies for environmentally harmful chemical fertilizers and pesticides in lower-income countries must be reduced, according to the UN analysis.

The critics who opposed the ban on chemical fertilizers altogether must be quite jealous – even if some criticisms of the modus operandi of the new policy would have been at least rational. But what did we have?

Hysterical screams that basically boast the virtues of chemical fertilizers, accompanied by tirades about the lust of the organic fertilizer initiative.

The Guardian article continues: “The UN report found that between 2013 and 2018 support to farmers averaged $ 540 billion a year, of which 87 percent ($ 470 billion) was” harmful ” was. These included price incentives for certain farm animals and crops, subsidies for fertilizers and pesticides, and distorting export subsidies and import tariffs. “


The know-it-alls at JVP and SJB have been deaf to the known negative effects of chemical fertilizers and now it seems that they are at least standardly associated with the subsidy culture of the “big farma” that is ruining the planet.

Then how about the protests organized by the ‘disturbed farming community’?

“Changes to the subsidy regime are likely to be politically controversial and could spark protests among farmers and other groups,” said Morgan Gillespy of the Food and Land Use Coalition. “But just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. The facts are now clear. ”(British Guard.)

The peasant protests here were largely orchestrated by the overactive political machinery of the JVP. It was their usual methodology – that is, creating a crisis and then staging a protest citing negligence and worse.

For example, they agitate for Covid-19 related closures on the fly, and when the closings do happen, they bring out a parade of the “hungry and neglected” claiming the lockdowns have starved these people and kept them in abject poverty.

The UN report essentially belies the campaigns of stakeholders on various fronts.

For example, keen interest groups have campaigned to keep the imported dairy food industry going. Milk powder in the form in which it is sold is useless to the consumer, but then these are highly subsidized “Big Farma” products that come to us from countries that run these industrial dairy cattle projects, so to speak, in order to deceive the consumers abroad – and contribute in enormous amounts to global warming.

We can no longer have lobby groups – SJB, JVP, or NGOs turning the truth upside down by demonizing organic fertilizer projects and celebrating the use of chemical fertilizers while lamenting import restrictions on milk powder of foreign origin.

In today’s context, lobby groups that cling to such a policy for whatever reason must be populated either by ignoramuses and idiots – or by those who have committed themselves to self-interest for ancillary reasons.


The government’s move towards global sustainability is a long game. Those who are fundamentally against it are in the dark age – because they are basically cheering a project to devastate vast swathes of land.

The UN report cited above states that such acts of desertification, caused by subsidized agriculture and the use of chemical fertilizers, could be remedied through the practice of agroforestry.

Agroforestry is “the deliberate integration of trees and shrubs into plant and animal husbandry systems to create ecological, economic and social benefits”. It is organic farming at its very essence because it aids in carbon sequestration, which is the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to keep it in the soil (for plant nutrition).

These are the enlightened practices that the JVP and the so-called socially conscious elite should cheer for when either of them has a progressive bone in their body. But they got along with the self-interest that has now been exposed in the UN report.

“What Sri Lanka needs right now is a second green revolution to improve its agricultural yields. As mentioned above, the first Green Revolution was based on the development of high-yielding varieties, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. ”This is a quote from a recent article by a so-called former deputy governor of the central bank.

It is one thing to oppose the organic fertilizers initiative in detail, that is, it is too all-encompassing and so on, but the quote above shows how far back into the dark ages the so-called political elite has gone.

The former lieutenant governor wants to use more chemical fertilizers and pesticides – a second Green Revolution, as he calls it.

Under what rock did he recently appear? The United Nations warn of the dire consequences of subsidized use of artificial fertilizers and the dairy industry on an industrial scale, etc., on the poisonous culture of agriculture in the past.


This kind of blanket indulgence in self-interest, as Jathika Nidahas Peramuna’s MP Mohommed Muzammil once said on television, begs the question: How far have these self-interests gone in trying to influence people? Is it the money

These interest groups cannot be ignored – the possibility that they used material incentives to attract supporters.

However, it is unlikely that the former central bank official was in the salary. But shouldn’t such people be more aware of how damaging their support for these regressive causes can be – especially when it can be used by the above self-interest to further their damaging practices?

Of course, food security issues are omnipresent. They cannot be wished away. But does this mean that the apparent harmful effects of “Big Farma” farming practices should be completely ignored? That we turn a blind eye to the land devastation and so on, which could potentially lead to more hunger in the long run?

This is not just short-sighted, but completely irresponsible behavior. The types of JVP and SJB owe the nation a wholehearted apology for promoting regressive policies as progressive, and former central bank types might join in too.

Basically, organic farming will quickly become a necessity, because the so-called Green Revolutions had their price.

High-yielding crops are one thing, but the unconditional reliance on chemical fertilizers and unsustainable agricultural practices like industrial dairy farming are absolutely a thing of the past.

If someone promotes powdered milk imports under these circumstances, he belongs to the Stone Age.

The long game under the new organic fertilizer initiative is tough and challenging. But the transformation requires sacrifices. The project may need to be adjusted as there are undoubtedly crop yield considerations that should be considered. But fundamentally opposing the initiative, as our experts have done, is phenomenally ignorant, period.


Leave A Reply