Opinion: The Economist is wrong

By
22 December 2010

A couple of months ago, The Economist published a long article praising Brazilian agriculture, something that led to outbursts of patriotism, and to Brazilians expressing pride on their “success”. But how successful is this model so generously praised? Francisco Caporal argues that The Economist is wrong.

On closer examination, this article seems to have been "planted"

A couple of months ago, The Economist published a long article praising Brazilian agriculture, something that led to outbursts of patriotism, and to many colleagues expressing pride on our “success”. But how successful is this model that The Economist so generously praised? On closer examination, this article seems to have been “planted” by those interested in talking up the role of agribusinesses in my country, and in playing down the environmental and social impacts of our agricultural model.

The magazine says that the growth of large-scale farming in Brazil in recent decades shows its greater competitiveness. The truth is that the history of Brazilian agribusinesses is full of renegotiation processes and debt forgiveness. Official data, not mentioned by The Economist, show how taxpayers actually pay the bill. Equally absent are the figures of the latest agriculture census, released in September 2009, which show how family farming, though occupying only 24% of the total area, produces between 60 and 70% of the food that all Brazilians eat, and provides 8 out of 10 jobs in rural areas. And no mention is made of the relation between the praised model and the social and environmental problems we regularly hear of.

It is equally striking to read that other countries are recommended to follow Brazil’s example. But the type of agriculture praised by the magazine does not produce foodstuffs. Rather, it produces commodities for export (soybeans, orange juice, sugar, coffee), mostly to meet the demands coming from livestock-producing countries. Is this a good recommendation for countries hoping to reduce hunger? These countries should also be told that Brazil imports two thirds of the fertilizers that it uses, or that Brazil has become the world’s largest consumer of pesticides – despite the promise that GM crops would bring a reduction in the use of agricultural chemicals.

The magazine also refers to those who prefer small-scale farming systems and organic practices as “agro-pessimists”. This is another sign that the article was “planted”, as it is hard to believe that The Economist does not know about the increasing production and consumption levels of organic products, or about the strategic role which family farms play in producing foodstuffs all over the world. To label people who advocate for healthy food production systems, without a serious environmental impact, with a better distribution of wealth, or with more job opportunities, as “agro-pessimists”, shows, to say the least, a deeply flawed analysis – something uncommon in The Economist.

Text: Francisco Roberto Caporal

Francisco Roberto Caporal works as General Training Co-ordinator at the Ministry of Agrarian Development in Brasilia. He lectures at the Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, and is president of the Brazilian Agroecology Association, ABA-Agroecologia.
E-mail: caporalfr@gmail.com