It's not necessary. I mean if we use organic farming methods, we could achieve the same thing except not only do they produce more emissions, but because of the lower yield of crops, organic farms require more land.
In the tropics this means cutting down more rainforests, affecting not only emissions but wildlife.
The scientific and technological solution is disease and pest resistant GM crops.
In the developed countries food is just to cheap. I know this is controversial statement, but considering how much food is wasted daily, and how much we're overeating it's possible that not subsidizing food production, and getting rid of pesticides would be better for us all.
The only other issue is that poor families would possibly have even less access to food, but if we shuffled subsidies from farmers to the poor, that would probably be enough.
Also, problem with the food full of pesticides, and virtually empty of micronutrients is that this food is not really something we should be eating anyway.
Like a lot of cheap goods available presently in the west, they often have a low monetary cost but a high social and environmental cost.
IKEA furniture has had a dubious past, for example [1] and, cheap clothing can be horrendous. [2]
Most people don't give a single thought about this stuff though, people even get abusive if you mention it, but I still like to practice what I call "deep consuming", which is investigating the origin of goods before purchasing :)
Do you think that in a rich capitalistic country the farmers would prefer to have less productivity? they will use all legal methods to obtain maximum profit. Since not all population will buy green/bio stuff you will not solve the pesticides use by starving poor people in poor countries.
I do not know a lot about subsidies but usually farmers get less taxes on diesel and buying new equipment and in EU they get some money to encourage them to increase the farm and productivity.
The deeper problem is monoculture versus multiculture (if that is the correct word).
Our farming is currently focused on monoculture: only one kind of crop on a large field. Mainly because its efficient in maintenance and picking because it makes all kinds of mechanization possible.
But monoculture is not good for the soil and bad for health of the crop. Therefore pesticides and fertilizers are needed.
A very divers pallet of fruits and crops in the same area. The soil will only get better and the plants protect each other. Just as in the 'real nature' ;-)
The downside is losing the efficiency: getting all the different fruits and crops from the field is more labour intense. But the general maintenance will be much cheaper (no pesticides and fertilizers). And the yield will be healthier and probably more nutritious.
The other downside is more commercial: the big companies that sell mechanized stuff, pesticides and fertilizers will always educate farmers into monoculture.
But especially for more poor countries (or poor farmers !) a multiculture would be much more beneficial...
A modern combine harvester can process about 10,000 acres per person per year. Hand pickers can do about 10 acres per person per year. Are you prepared for food prices to go up 1000x?
I'm no fan of pesticides -- far, far, from it -- but this is unadulterated ideological polemic. Reading the actual report, the argument can be summed up as:
1. Pesticides are bad.
2. Pesticides are bad.
3-8. Pesticides are bad.
9. Oh and they don't even do anything.
The first sections may be entirely true, but are not a cost/benefit analysis. I could easily believe that 200,000 die every year from pesticide toxicity. But if 100 million people are saved from starvation every year due to pesticide use, then that isn't an argument against it. You need to present both sides of an argument in order for it to be anything less then polemical.
The final section is based on misrepresentation of sources. For example, first source they cite[1] does, in fact, state in the abstract that:
Despite a clear increase in pesticide use, crop losses
have not significantly decreased during the last 40 years.
And then goes on to state:
However, pesticide use has enabled farmers to modify
production systems and to increase crop productivity without
sustaining the higher losses likely to occur from an
increased susceptibility to the damaging effect of pests.
The concept of integrated pest/crop management includes a
threshold concept for the application of pest control
measures and reduction in the amount/frequency of pesticides
applied to an economically and ecologically acceptable
level. Often minor crop losses are economically acceptable;
however, an increase in crop productivity without adequate
crop protection does not make sense, because an increase in
attainable yields is often associated with an increased
vulnerability to damage inflicted by pests.
...Which is completely counter to the assertions made in the anti-pesticide article.
This is crap. If you want to see less pesticide use, do some actual science to prove your point; don't resort to polemical nonsense.
> If you want to see less pesticide use, do some actual science to prove your point; don't resort to polemical nonsense.
I agree with everything you said, except maybe this. Polemical nonsense can be more effective than science if you are trying to alter policy or public opinion. If that weren't true, global warming wouldn't be controversial.
Something I wish more scientist minded people would understand. Moving people people has nothing to do with being right. If you care about a topic, education is only a long term investment. You need a short term action has well, and it can't appeal to logic.
I don't disagree with you as far as the effectiveness of polemic; more the ethics of it. Built on a rational/empirical foundation, a good polemic can engage hit people in both the guts and the brain. That's fine. But absent such a foundation, a polemic is just empty posturing. It might win, but to what end? And if we accept this as a legitimate way of arguing policy, then how what right to we have to object when others use the same tactic against us?
I recognise that all over the world -- and especially in America -- the political sphere is increasingly dominated by people engaging in polemical arguments that consider facts to be essentially irrelevant. And yes, this is working for them. But if we stoop to that level, the contagion only spreads, and politics devolves into nothing more than tribal hooting at one another. Which is usually the last step before civil war.
The ethics are complex. If the use of polemic speech spurs action on climate change, you are potentially avoiding (or mitigating) catastrophes. Sometimes the end justifies the means.
You make very good points. I do not know if this is just me, but such articles seem to corner themselves by arguing (or supporting an argument) that:
1. We need high crop yields to feed current population
2. Pesticides are bad
3. We need crops that can give high yields organically
4. Genetic engineering might help (often implicitly acknowledged)
5. GMO is worse than bad
6. Go back to (1)
There are different honest ways to open this loop (e.g., accept GMOs), but any time I see this I assume that the goal is politics, not science and stop reading.
I try not to use pesticides myself on my hobby farm, they do have many downsides. However, I invite people to go visit their local organic farms, where you will find the following suboptimal approaches to weed control:
- Extensive rototilling / plowing / cultivation, soil disturbance: damages soil structure, increases erosion, releases carbon locked in the soil worsening global warming.
- Propane burners strapped to the back of a tractor, torching the weeds.
- Extensive use of volunteer or cheap manual labour -- look up WWOOF... true-believer volunteer "WWOOFers" make up a significant labour force at organic farms.
Finally, you will find that most organic farms are just growing green vegetables or fruits and some small scale livestock. Which is great, but frankly on a global scale what people eat the most of[but probably shouldn't] is primarily wheat, maize, rice, and casava. You won't find many organic wheat farms.
From my perspective the long term answer is to transition agriculture and foodstuffs away from annual herbaceous crops which require tillage and/or spray-down to perennial crops which over the long term build up soil structure and potentially lock carbon away rather than releasing it. For an example of research in this direction, take a look at The Land Institute's "Kernza" perennial wheat replacement: https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/kernza/
Agriculture is probably the biggest contributor to global climate change through the combination of deforestation, intensive hydrocarbon usage, and the damaging of soils. It is imperative we figure out a way to get it right, and the discussions of GMO or pesticides are frankly a distraction from this problem.
> Extensive use of volunteer or cheap manual labour -- look up WWOOF... true-believer volunteer "WWOOFers" make up a significant labour force at organic farms.
In addition WWOOFers often violate labor and immigration laws, sometimes just by figuring "this doesn't apply to me." After all, labor laws are for brown people who want to make money and plan on moving to the country -- not for middle class young white people who are doing a fun "work-cation" activity for a noble cause, right!?
I have a few friends (from the US) who traveled to various parts of Europe to work on organic farms, in one case an Italian vineyard, and didn't bother applying for any sort of work visa, just did everything as a "tourist." Of course, they were all compensated in the form of room and board, but didn't bother reporting it or considering it as "income" like they're supposed to. I'm sure there are many Europeans coming over and doing the same thing.
> It is imperative we figure out a way to get it right, and the discussions of GMO or pesticides are frankly a distraction from this problem
They contribute to our contemporary vision of agriculture, which is intensive, mono specific, high yield, mechanized, subsidized, etc. Short term.
GMO and pesticides optimize our current way of growing stuff but won't change it.
I don't know about scaling progressively the permaculture ideal to world scale but it feels like a good ideal. I would not be shocked if a sustainable system would require us quadruple our effort (which is pretty much what third world is up to).
Yes I agree with you. This is my problem with GMO -- not the 'frankengene' pseudo-science crap, but the ecological/economic problems you are mentioning here.
But as someone who ran in permaculture circles for a bit, I am highly skeptical of that ideological bucket, too.
The EU regulatory bodies are not filled with crystal-waving hippies. Maybe you should look into why GMOs are banned/heavily restricted there (environmental/ecological risks).
"But science" is a good corporate propaganda strategy when the science does clearly say one thing, but not this other thing which is also important. Don't be misled. Look at the entire issue.
"In sharp contrast to public views about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.
That’s the most eye-opening finding in a Pew Research Center study on science literacy, undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released on January 29.
The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on global warming."
The EU regulatory bodies are governed by elected politicians who in this case listen to fearmongering, not science.
Regardless of any real or tin-foil-hatted dangers regarding pesticides, GMO, etc, I believe that biodiversity in and decentralization of our food supply are two vectors of robustness & anti-fragility that we should embrace, as opposed to optimizing outputs for monoculture monopoly farming.
Monoculture is a less well-known problem than pesticides for the general public. Its easier to rail against a problem that feels familiar than to teach a somewhat new idea and then discuss the dangers of it.
Additionally, a lot of people like the products of monoculture and the cheap, on-demand, readily-available food business that it enables. It would take a seismic shift for a lot of people to accept discoloration in their mcdonalds french fries, or tomatoes at walmart that aren't all perfectly spherical pinkish orbs.
So much agreed! I've worked on a few agroforestry and biodiversity is the key. I've seen acid land full of ants transformed into a very productive forest in 5 years without any use of pesticides, GMO or NPK fertilizer. It seems more labor intensive at first but I know a farmer that literally only works 4 hours a day and can feed a family of 5 alone (a much more diverse diet which leads to more healthy too) and still sell a lot in the market. Agroforestry have much more wield per square meter than anything else because it also uses the vertical space instead of just the horizontal.
Hey, can you provide more detailed info about agroforestry (where I should look, etc.)? I was just having a discussion on this the other day with a friend, where our intuitions differed but lack of data stopped us from getting too far. It was prompted by a school for kids in need in India, where much of people's donations went to food, but the food was still poor (mainly just rice, bought on market).
My intuition from a tiny bit of experience growing worms with home-composting was that the same amount of money spent toward tending properly biodiverse land (incl. micro organisms, mycoculture etc.) could provide much more effective and healthy food sources, only if the requisite knowledge was there. So I thought the most effective donation could be an open source repository of essentially recipes for a biodiverse plot, searchable by weather/temperature, type of soil, types of seeds/animals available at market, which provides instructions for how to set up year round harvest.
Sure! When I started learning about agroforestry I looked for english books on the subject but didn't find good ones, Gaia's Garden by Toby Hemenway have really good info you could use. But in portuguese I've so a few good PDFs here, I guess that's because of the work of Ernst Gotsch here in Brazil, here's a good video that summarize his work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE
Take very special attention to the ground on the video I linked above. So the main thing is the soil, the work will basically be always improving it by pilling up organic matter, from regular pruning and your organic waste too, the school must have good source of organic waste, also the city gardens/grass pruning are a good place to look for organic matter you could use on this project.
Also, the more you plant together and at the same time the better. On the video you can see Bananas and Eucalyptus side by side, people think that Eucalyptus doesnt let anything grows near it, etc... but then I saw a lot of things fruiting just a few centimeters from Eucalyptus, because of the regular pruning.
I'll send you an email so we can continue to talk about this.
My understanding of the issue is framed along the lines of these three statements:
1. Modern farming practices have increased productivity to the point where it is possible to avoid serious food shortages.
2. A significant percentage of the world population does not fully benefit from these advances (~10%, according to [1]).
3. In many systems, increasing utilisation (food productivity in this case) also increases the risks associated with random variability.
Given what I know, point 1 is essentially indisputable. Technological advances (including developments in pest control) have freed large portions of the world population from periodic food poverty.
I feel that point 2 is used to justify increased investment in certain categories of the developments referred to in point 1. That hungry people exist is sufficient to justify expenditure that _could_ address food shortages, but, in fact, does not. This is the main focus of the article - that claims about reducing poverty are cynically employed by businesses to further their economic goals. This should not really be a surprise, because business is largely about making money, not reducing poverty.
Point 3 is something that I have long been concerned with, because I don't see any mechanism in the market to restrain us from attempting to maximise productivity. As described, the move towards maximisation is justified in terms of poverty, and, although it can address that issue, it brings us closer to another danger, which is global susceptibility to large random events. It is for this reason that I feel the true focus should be on reducing poverty, rather than simply allowing the market to attempt to solve the problem. Reduced poverty is, as I understand it, generally associated with decreases in population growth, from which we may be able to maintain a robust global food supply that doesn't leave anyone hungry.
It was a high reliance on a monoculture which contributed to the devastation. Smart "agroecology" would not forget the "ecology" root, meaning it would design robust, biodiverse ecologies to produce our food.
> Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.
Poverty and inequality are symptoms, they aren't problems that can be generically solved independently of production.
> Elver said many of the pesticides are used on commodity crops, such as palm oil and soy, not the food needed by the world’s hungry people
It's 2017, we live in a global market. These are still industries that generate wealth. Poorer countries could (and do) grow/sell these crops and export them to other countries. Then they can take this capital and invest it in more essential items locally.
And if they believe in wealth redistribution as a 'solution' to poverty (as it seems to be implied?) then if this generates wealth in developed countries with plenty of food (even entirely independently of developing countries) then it could create surplus capital allowing them to provide aid and resources to developing countries.
It seems like starting from the perspective that because product/production A doesn't directly benefit hungry people in B country that there is no way it benefits the world as whole by being produced. Which is full of obvious reductionist issues.
The problem/solution is we need to find safer pesticides or technology to grow these foods and reduce the harmful externalities of production. But the connection to not contributing to the global economy (rather than just developed world) is questionable.
41 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 95.0 ms ] threadIn the tropics this means cutting down more rainforests, affecting not only emissions but wildlife.
The scientific and technological solution is disease and pest resistant GM crops.
The only other issue is that poor families would possibly have even less access to food, but if we shuffled subsidies from farmers to the poor, that would probably be enough.
Also, problem with the food full of pesticides, and virtually empty of micronutrients is that this food is not really something we should be eating anyway.
Like a lot of cheap goods available presently in the west, they often have a low monetary cost but a high social and environmental cost.
IKEA furniture has had a dubious past, for example [1] and, cheap clothing can be horrendous. [2]
Most people don't give a single thought about this stuff though, people even get abusive if you mention it, but I still like to practice what I call "deep consuming", which is investigating the origin of goods before purchasing :)
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/29/ikea-anc... [2] http://truecostmovie.com/
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/13724926...
edit: https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers...
Our farming is currently focused on monoculture: only one kind of crop on a large field. Mainly because its efficient in maintenance and picking because it makes all kinds of mechanization possible.
But monoculture is not good for the soil and bad for health of the crop. Therefore pesticides and fertilizers are needed.
An alternative could be multiculture. Like for example http://jinjaritual.com/syntropic-farming/
A very divers pallet of fruits and crops in the same area. The soil will only get better and the plants protect each other. Just as in the 'real nature' ;-)
The downside is losing the efficiency: getting all the different fruits and crops from the field is more labour intense. But the general maintenance will be much cheaper (no pesticides and fertilizers). And the yield will be healthier and probably more nutritious.
The other downside is more commercial: the big companies that sell mechanized stuff, pesticides and fertilizers will always educate farmers into monoculture.
But especially for more poor countries (or poor farmers !) a multiculture would be much more beneficial...
The final section is based on misrepresentation of sources. For example, first source they cite[1] does, in fact, state in the abstract that:
And then goes on to state: ...Which is completely counter to the assertions made in the anti-pesticide article.This is crap. If you want to see less pesticide use, do some actual science to prove your point; don't resort to polemical nonsense.
1: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF...
2: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultu...
[edit: formatting]
I agree with everything you said, except maybe this. Polemical nonsense can be more effective than science if you are trying to alter policy or public opinion. If that weren't true, global warming wouldn't be controversial.
I recognise that all over the world -- and especially in America -- the political sphere is increasingly dominated by people engaging in polemical arguments that consider facts to be essentially irrelevant. And yes, this is working for them. But if we stoop to that level, the contagion only spreads, and politics devolves into nothing more than tribal hooting at one another. Which is usually the last step before civil war.
So we need to be better than that.
1. We need high crop yields to feed current population 2. Pesticides are bad 3. We need crops that can give high yields organically 4. Genetic engineering might help (often implicitly acknowledged) 5. GMO is worse than bad 6. Go back to (1)
There are different honest ways to open this loop (e.g., accept GMOs), but any time I see this I assume that the goal is politics, not science and stop reading.
"Thou shalt not -cide" is quite an ancient commandment :)
Seriously, of course they are "bad", it's written on the package.
I am all for more research but there is no controversy as to "are pesticides bad?" and our next collective move isn't scientific, it's political.
- Extensive rototilling / plowing / cultivation, soil disturbance: damages soil structure, increases erosion, releases carbon locked in the soil worsening global warming.
- Propane burners strapped to the back of a tractor, torching the weeds.
- Extensive use of volunteer or cheap manual labour -- look up WWOOF... true-believer volunteer "WWOOFers" make up a significant labour force at organic farms.
Finally, you will find that most organic farms are just growing green vegetables or fruits and some small scale livestock. Which is great, but frankly on a global scale what people eat the most of[but probably shouldn't] is primarily wheat, maize, rice, and casava. You won't find many organic wheat farms.
From my perspective the long term answer is to transition agriculture and foodstuffs away from annual herbaceous crops which require tillage and/or spray-down to perennial crops which over the long term build up soil structure and potentially lock carbon away rather than releasing it. For an example of research in this direction, take a look at The Land Institute's "Kernza" perennial wheat replacement: https://landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/kernza/
Agriculture is probably the biggest contributor to global climate change through the combination of deforestation, intensive hydrocarbon usage, and the damaging of soils. It is imperative we figure out a way to get it right, and the discussions of GMO or pesticides are frankly a distraction from this problem.
I've seen them and they're ugly:
- on a good year yields are 50% of neighboring fields
- on a bad year (1 in 4) they don't even bother harvesting because the only thing growing there is weeds
- huge sand dunes along the fence line because over-tillage has caused massive erosion
- algal blooms and fish die-off in the nearby waters because of erosion and manure fertilizer
- even the animals aren't better off because frequent tillage destroys their habitat
In addition WWOOFers often violate labor and immigration laws, sometimes just by figuring "this doesn't apply to me." After all, labor laws are for brown people who want to make money and plan on moving to the country -- not for middle class young white people who are doing a fun "work-cation" activity for a noble cause, right!?
I have a few friends (from the US) who traveled to various parts of Europe to work on organic farms, in one case an Italian vineyard, and didn't bother applying for any sort of work visa, just did everything as a "tourist." Of course, they were all compensated in the form of room and board, but didn't bother reporting it or considering it as "income" like they're supposed to. I'm sure there are many Europeans coming over and doing the same thing.
They contribute to our contemporary vision of agriculture, which is intensive, mono specific, high yield, mechanized, subsidized, etc. Short term.
GMO and pesticides optimize our current way of growing stuff but won't change it.
I don't know about scaling progressively the permaculture ideal to world scale but it feels like a good ideal. I would not be shocked if a sustainable system would require us quadruple our effort (which is pretty much what third world is up to).
But as someone who ran in permaculture circles for a bit, I am highly skeptical of that ideological bucket, too.
"But science" is a good corporate propaganda strategy when the science does clearly say one thing, but not this other thing which is also important. Don't be misled. Look at the entire issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130...
"In sharp contrast to public views about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.
That’s the most eye-opening finding in a Pew Research Center study on science literacy, undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released on January 29.
The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on global warming."
The EU regulatory bodies are governed by elected politicians who in this case listen to fearmongering, not science.
It's fear mongering and liberal's taboo, just like climate change for conservatives.
Monoculture is a less well-known problem than pesticides for the general public. Its easier to rail against a problem that feels familiar than to teach a somewhat new idea and then discuss the dangers of it.
Additionally, a lot of people like the products of monoculture and the cheap, on-demand, readily-available food business that it enables. It would take a seismic shift for a lot of people to accept discoloration in their mcdonalds french fries, or tomatoes at walmart that aren't all perfectly spherical pinkish orbs.
My intuition from a tiny bit of experience growing worms with home-composting was that the same amount of money spent toward tending properly biodiverse land (incl. micro organisms, mycoculture etc.) could provide much more effective and healthy food sources, only if the requisite knowledge was there. So I thought the most effective donation could be an open source repository of essentially recipes for a biodiverse plot, searchable by weather/temperature, type of soil, types of seeds/animals available at market, which provides instructions for how to set up year round harvest.
An agroforestry look like this: https://sitiocurupira.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/agroflores...
Take very special attention to the ground on the video I linked above. So the main thing is the soil, the work will basically be always improving it by pilling up organic matter, from regular pruning and your organic waste too, the school must have good source of organic waste, also the city gardens/grass pruning are a good place to look for organic matter you could use on this project.
Also, the more you plant together and at the same time the better. On the video you can see Bananas and Eucalyptus side by side, people think that Eucalyptus doesnt let anything grows near it, etc... but then I saw a lot of things fruiting just a few centimeters from Eucalyptus, because of the regular pruning.
I'll send you an email so we can continue to talk about this.
1. Modern farming practices have increased productivity to the point where it is possible to avoid serious food shortages.
2. A significant percentage of the world population does not fully benefit from these advances (~10%, according to [1]).
3. In many systems, increasing utilisation (food productivity in this case) also increases the risks associated with random variability.
Given what I know, point 1 is essentially indisputable. Technological advances (including developments in pest control) have freed large portions of the world population from periodic food poverty.
I feel that point 2 is used to justify increased investment in certain categories of the developments referred to in point 1. That hungry people exist is sufficient to justify expenditure that _could_ address food shortages, but, in fact, does not. This is the main focus of the article - that claims about reducing poverty are cynically employed by businesses to further their economic goals. This should not really be a surprise, because business is largely about making money, not reducing poverty.
Point 3 is something that I have long been concerned with, because I don't see any mechanism in the market to restrain us from attempting to maximise productivity. As described, the move towards maximisation is justified in terms of poverty, and, although it can address that issue, it brings us closer to another danger, which is global susceptibility to large random events. It is for this reason that I feel the true focus should be on reducing poverty, rather than simply allowing the market to attempt to solve the problem. Reduced poverty is, as I understand it, generally associated with decreases in population growth, from which we may be able to maintain a robust global food supply that doesn't leave anyone hungry.
[1] http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-fac...
edit: formatting
So when Phytophthora Infestans led to the death a million Irish in the 19th century, what should have been done? Or are we supposed to forget history?
[0]https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Causes_...
Poverty and inequality are symptoms, they aren't problems that can be generically solved independently of production.
> Elver said many of the pesticides are used on commodity crops, such as palm oil and soy, not the food needed by the world’s hungry people
It's 2017, we live in a global market. These are still industries that generate wealth. Poorer countries could (and do) grow/sell these crops and export them to other countries. Then they can take this capital and invest it in more essential items locally.
And if they believe in wealth redistribution as a 'solution' to poverty (as it seems to be implied?) then if this generates wealth in developed countries with plenty of food (even entirely independently of developing countries) then it could create surplus capital allowing them to provide aid and resources to developing countries.
It seems like starting from the perspective that because product/production A doesn't directly benefit hungry people in B country that there is no way it benefits the world as whole by being produced. Which is full of obvious reductionist issues.
The problem/solution is we need to find safer pesticides or technology to grow these foods and reduce the harmful externalities of production. But the connection to not contributing to the global economy (rather than just developed world) is questionable.