|
A good bit about food production has never been accounted for in "scientific" tests. Science is about rigorous observation. Is reductionism the only technique that is valid for understanding ALL phenomenon? Seems like this consideration has not been applied all too rigorously. As for reductionism: when dealing in this sphere it has thus far proven itself to be, well, limited, at least in providing a comprehensive understanding of food systems. The understanding that is applied to food science, that has any merit, comes from botany, ecology, climatology. IMHO the best food science comes from the likes of Sepp Holzer and bill mollison, who at least the latter is an actual scientist. The military food scientists thus far have not ss done well at applying most scientific advancements to the domain. Since all war scientists started applying their trade to food production in the fifties, it's been one fiasco after the next. Empirically speaking, chemical, genetic, and mechanical intervention (so called enhancements) is meme science. If you study up on it, you'll see that there is plenty of empirical evidence that the genetically selected rice and wheat grains pushed on Eastern Asia were worse on almost all counts than their traditional seed. After more than a decade and a half of failure, they showed some marginal benefit, but only if the right amount of fertilizer was applied during a period of extraordinarily ideal environmental circumstancses-- and this is what it boils down to: chemical companies wanting to sell fertilizer and pesticides. Asian farmers kept planting these grains because they received subsidies backed by the local and US governments to buy fertilizer, machines, and pesticides, and received favorable purchasing conditions for providing
the right variety of grain. After getting locked in, or facing bankruptcy, many times they dont have a choice but to continue. The results are there, refer to Food Production in the 21st Century. It was written in the mid nineties by an academic worthy of your time if you have any interest in this topic. If there is political motivation muddying up your science at the institutional level, it's not going to be rigorous. |