MY OPINION

About agriculture

What is happening in the countryside?

With the “blessing” of the Ministry of Agriculture, former farmsteads are increasingly disappearing from the horizon in rural areas—they are pushed by bulldozer into pits dug by an excavator. Surrounding old trees are uprooted and often right on the spot, together with their branches, are shredded into woodchips and taken away. This means that valuable biomass for sustaining the life of the soil is removed—along with minerals so necessary and valuable for humans.

Only a flat spot remains. So that no mini‑reserve of natural diversity forms there and to put the final dot, this place is additionally sprayed with herbicides and fungicides. A classic of the genre—already the next year, the spot is taken over by a field of wheat or rapeseed.

So to speak, the “food” chemistry industry still needs such raw materials for now in order to produce health‑damaging pseudo‑food. Therefore one should not be surprised by the logical outcome—environmental degradation. And each such “tidied up” patch also means fewer flowering plants, less food and less life for pollinators.

Even the “State Plant Protection Service” Sounds the Alarm

Yes, even the “State Plant Protection Service” is concerned about the decline in soil fertility. The most paradoxical thing is that this service is subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture, which, under the influence of certain lobbies, pursues a policy in rural areas—cut down everything that can be cut down and plow up everything that can be plowed up. In words, of course, this ministry justifies itself by saying that natural values are not indifferent to it, but what is happening in rural landscapes shows the opposite.

Unfortunately, these concerns about worsening soil fertility are mostly related to a reduction in yield mass, not to quality—for example, to the amount of micronutrients (rare mineral substances) needed by humans in the diet. They are needed in small and even extremely small amounts; without them stable, long‑term functioning of the human body cannot be ensured, and health problems begin.

In nature it is arranged so that if any plant or animal species begins to lack even one nutrient component, that species starts to decline, making room for other species for which there is enough. In this way nature tries to preserve balance and diversity—contrary to what humans try to do.

The measures offered by the “State Plant Protection Service”—crop rotation, greening and liming—can address this problem only partially and only in the short term. Much more radical steps are needed, which may sound like an evil nightmare to minds seized by the greed of large conventional farmers and forest clear‑cutters. A large part of degraded agricultural land should be allowed to be restored by nature itself, letting it become overgrown with shrubs so that they bring up everything missing from the depths of the soil. Something somewhat similar in this direction happened in the 1990s, when the land was given a small, brief respite.

In degraded land, the shrubs that have grown after several years should not be turned into woodchips, as happens now, but should be incorporated into the soil to revive depleted soil. In my opinion, that would be one of the most logical solutions in the current situation. If we do not do it ourselves, nature will do it for us—because in the future there simply will not remain those who continue to destroy their habitat. This process has already begun: the demographic situation is dramatic. Increasing child allowances or even medical in vitro fertilization (IVF, extracorporeal fertilization) will not solve this situation.

Can Nature Be Fooled?

Although the achievements of chemical food technologies are impressive, it is not possible to do entirely without raw materials produced in agriculture. But how is the production of raw materials going in intensive agriculture aimed at maximum yields? It turns out—ever more difficult. I will try to explain why.

Plants must absorb dozens of minerals and micronutrients from the soil (often more than 60 are mentioned). The fastest way to increase yield volume is NPK—nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). In industrial production, year after year carrying ever larger crop mass off the field, most often mainly these three elements are returned to the soil, while balancing the remaining substances is often postponed, because it does not give an immediate yield increase and is expensive.

If the plant lacks the necessary micronutrients, natural resilience (resistance) to disease and stress decreases. Logically, the soil should be supplemented with the missing substances and fertility should be restored, but in practice it is often economically more advantageous to “press down” the consequences with fungicides, insecticides and other plant protection products.

But that is not the end. Plant disease agents and pests adapt over time to the preparations used, so periodically they have to be changed or stronger ones applied. Since generations of microbes, bacteria and fungi change much faster than in humans, adaptation happens quickly—and with each new generation, resistance to the agents used tends to increase.

Even though the production capacities and possibilities of chemicals are expanding, the amount of problems does not automatically decrease. “Chemistry” also costs money, so ways are sought to reduce costs. For example, genetically modified (GMO) plants are grown that themselves produce substances that affect pests (e.g., Bt‑type proteins), or varieties that are resistant to certain herbicides so that weeds die while the crop survives.

Unfortunately, both the substances produced by the plants themselves and the agents used to treat fields sooner or later end up in the environment: in the soil and then also in groundwater. And here it is no longer only about yield—it is about the overall health of the ecosystem.

In Latvia’s mass media there had appeared information that, according to analyses, organically produced dairy products allegedly do not differ from ordinary ones in any way, and therefore it is not worth spending money. That would be very nice if it were always true. But analyses are not that simple.

Pesticides often consist of many components, and manufacturers change formulations over time (also because pests’ resistance increases). To find all potentially harmful substances, that is, toxins, in the finished product, complex and expensive examinations are required. In addition, the same substance can behave the same in a laboratory but differently under real field conditions, because the effect is influenced by combinations and synergy of many substances.

GMO Food

Hundreds of species of bacteria and other microorganisms live in the human intestinal tract and help maintain the microflora: they participate in vitamin synthesis and regulation of the immune system. It is often said that immunity “begins in the gut”.

Speaking about genetically modified food (GMO), what worries me is the possible impact on the gut microbiome and the long‑term consequences that in everyday life cannot be felt immediately. In the short term the body does indeed process food and eliminate it, but the question is what happens over a longer time and whether certain components can influence the body. In some animal experiments—for example, when feeding GMO soy—changes in health and reproductive indicators have been described. It turns out that not everything is so harmless: certain fragments, some molecules, enter the bloodstream and lymph. From there—into the liver, spleen, kidneys and the reproductive system. This is proven by experiments with rats and hamsters that were fed only GMO soy (the kind used in sausages by meat plants and added into compound feed by feed manufacturers). The experiments stop already in the second and third generation, because there is no one left to experiment on. Even the hardiest animals on earth—rats—begin to get sick and cannot reproduce. Nothing similar happens in the control group that is fed ordinary soy.

This phenomenon has a rational explanation. GMOs can be considered defects from nature’s point of view. In nature there are mechanisms that reduce the inheritance of serious genetic defects to the next generations; therefore radical genetic modifications can also be perceived as defects that potentially threaten the existence of a given species. Although small genetic mutations are part of evolution, accurately determining the boundary where the risk of species extinction may begin is very difficult, but it is important.

Farmers who consider growing GMO crops should take into account not only the promised yield, but also long‑term side effects. Sometimes the gain (productivity, easier weed control, etc.) is more pronounced in the first years, but later soil fatigue, adaptation of pests and weeds, as well as costs begin to have an impact.

Genetically modified seeds are usually not intended for “seed from your own harvest”, and the farmer becomes dependent on supplies and licenses. If over time they want to return to previous varieties or technologies, they may face a yield drop and a reduction in the soil’s “life” (diversity of microorganisms, insects and other organisms). There is also a risk of cross‑pollination with related wild plants, and then the process becomes harder to predict. This fully applies also to GMO energy crops, which in some places are becoming increasingly popular.

Business at the Expense of Human Health

By the way, this is the bank of the Rēzekne River in Griškāni parish, managed by the farm from which the new climate and energy minister, Kaspars Melnis, comes. With grain growers acting like this, in Latvia almost 70% of waters are polluted to the extent that it threatens human health. The EU requires a 10‑meter buffer strip, but in Latvia even maintaining a 3‑meter buffer strip is a big problem. Meanwhile biologists believe that to really protect waters, the strip should be about 50 meters. Leaders of the association “Zemnieku saeima” even have the cynicism to ask: “Who will compensate us for observing such a strip?” Business at the expense of human health.

When we joined the European Union, we were proud to be the second “greenest” country in the world after Switzerland. At present, thanks to conventional farmers and forest clear‑cutters, we have fallen into the fourth ten and stand next to countries where even worn‑out car tires are burned for heating.

The European Union has launched an infringement procedure against Latvia for the destruction of habitats of European importance. At the same time, in Latvia the volume of timber and woodchips transshipped in ports is increasing (by 20–40% per year). Under lobbying influence, laws on habitat protection still have not been fully put in order. The result is predictable: habitats disappear, while responsibility dissolves.

Absurd Agricultural Policy

Recent events in the world that have caused sharp fluctuations in the prices of fuel, mineral fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural machinery clearly highlight the shortcomings of the Ministry of Agriculture’s strategy so far. In striving for immediate and maximum profit, a practice is allowed of managing fallow land in such a way that it no longer fulfills its main task—helping to maintain living, fertile soil. Natural processes ensure that microorganisms produce nutrients for plants, bind nitrogen from the air and convert minerals into forms available to plants. But if the number of microorganisms in the soil drops, these processes weaken and plants become less resistant to disease.

Microorganisms need energy, which plants provide them—also in the form of polysaccharides. If the soil is constantly treated with herbicides that eliminate weeds and reduce biological diversity, while the harvest is completely removed, microorganisms lack food and the soil becomes depleted. To compensate for this, expensive mineral fertilizers are imported from abroad, which increase crop mass but do not always improve plant health. Therefore, increasingly expensive pesticides are also used. Over time, some of these substances are leached from the soil and end up in waters, and then in the sea, increasing pollution.

In Zemgale, which used to be considered the breadbasket, there are fewer and fewer organic farms. Farming is often oriented toward immediate profit, and unfortunately many are not concerned that such practice may have serious consequences for future generations. The funds obtained from selling the harvest are mainly directed to purchasing mineral fertilizers, pesticides and ever more modern machinery, which reduces the number of people working in the countryside. As a result, farmsteads that shape the rural landscape and maintain biological diversity disappear. At the same time, rivers and the sea are polluted.

In my opinion, historically the basis of human nutrition has been plant products, yet nowadays meat often dominates the menu. At the same time, animals whose natural feed is grass are in large farms often fed with grain. In intensive livestock farms, animals often hardly see the sun in their lifetime, because everything is subordinated to the largest and fastest possible profit.

This model of farming is subsidized with taxpayers’ money. It would be more logical to redirect part of the subsidies to vegetable and fruit growers, because at present we cannot meet demand without imports. By the way, according to various estimates, Latvia supplies itself with vegetables only by about 60%.

If we want to preserve soil fertility, clean waters and a viable countryside, policy must support soil‑conserving practices: diverse crop rotations, cover crops, returning organic matter to the soil and incentives to reduce dependence on chemicals. Otherwise we will pay twice—first for subsidies, and then for eliminating the consequences.

On Subsidies for Farmers and Logic

Everyone knows that doping is forbidden in sports, because those who achieved results on their own end up among the losers because of those who use doping. From my own experience I can say: as a small producer who has successfully developed on my own without subsidies, it is hard for me to compete even with recipients of small subsidies. But this time it is not about that. I am not going to demand subsidies for myself—I want to see logic and far‑sighted thinking in government decisions.

Logic tells me that subsidies are a mechanism to support the interests of society itself using society’s (that is, taxpayers’) money. Subsidies should serve as a compass: what the state considers necessary and desirable for society. In my understanding, that means health‑friendly food at an acceptable price and, at the same time, accounting for what is happening in the countryside. Up to this point everything is clear to me. But in real life, traveling through the countryside, I see something completely different. The most popular sown areas are wheat and rapeseed—crops that, nutritionally, are not among the most health‑friendly and that are considered the most profitable economically. By that logic, it would be even more profitable to grow marijuana—only what would the international community say.

We worry about catastrophic demographic problems in the country and cannot understand where to find money to solve them. At the same time, with taxpayers’ money, large conventional grain growers are subsidized, and they send a large part of their production to countries where demographic problems are diametrically opposite to Latvia’s situation. As a result, we destroy biological diversity, impoverish and poison the soil, pollute waters, and degrade the natural landscape, making it an unattractive place to live.

Covid‑19 clearly showed us how deep in a “pit” people’s immune system and overall health are. This virus is like the first snowdrop in an avalanche‑like process that threatens if we change nothing: we will suppress one virus, and three will appear in its place. Health should not be sought in pharmacies and hospitals, but in the rural environment, from which we all come. With subsidies, we must support those people who try to put the rural environment in order, not those who degrade it by killing everything living in it. It is naive to hope that city dwellers will not be affected.

We have reached the absurd: oil flax, which once was very popular in Latvia, is now almost no longer grown, but flaxseed oil is purchased for our needs from Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Canada. In the context of health, flaxseed oil is the TOP product No. 1. There are other crops that should be grown on a mass scale as well: hemp, milk thistle, quinoa, amaranth, millet, lentils, broccoli. Vegetables must be grown in living, mineral‑rich soil. By the way, for our ancestors fermented cabbage in winter was a staple food—they added neither salt, nor vinegar, nor sugar; people did not eat white bread and were much healthier. These and similar crops should be paid generous subsidies, while for wheat and rapeseed it would be more logical to levy an excise tax, similar to alcohol and tobacco.

I appeal to the responsible officials of the Ministries of Agriculture and Education, not even to the Ministry of Health, because it mainly deals with eliminating consequences. Was the recent Covid‑19 pandemic, this warning from nature, really not enough? Do you want the daily number of victims to be measured not in single‑ and double‑digit numbers, as it was, but in three‑ and four‑digit numbers? We cannot change the laws of nature—we must live with them. Even the Saeima cannot amend or repeal them, but voters can amend the composition of the Saeima. If a suitable environment for a pandemic is created, then a pandemic will certainly happen—I fear more than one, and also more severe ones. Then we will fight heroically, like in a fairy tale, with a many‑headed dragon: cut off one head, two grow back in its place. On this website, in many different perspectives, it is described how to live together with nature; everything is explained step by step. There is nothing new there—honest scientists have been raising the alarm for a long time. All that is needed is the willingness to do it and to stick to logic!