pseudoscience and mysticism in agriculture

Beware of the trap of pseudo-science and mysticism in agriculture

In response to a growing demand for information from home gardeners, there is no shortage of books, press articles and websites suggesting a host of trendy tips: The weed-conserving culture, the dung horns and ‘light sprays’ of biodynamic agriculture that are said to have the supernatural power to improve plant growth, the cosmotelluric and magnetic beeswax antennae of electroculture, genodics or protein music that would help plants fight their predators, or the return to the old beliefs and recipes of our grandparents such as the lunar calendar, astral forces, nettle purins that could fool crop predators.

Nettle manure is one of the “Natural Preparations of Low Concern” (NPP) which would have no phytopharmaceutical activity, but would still be useful for crop protection. A list of PNPPs is available by clicking here. While some substances are known not to be dangerous for humans (such as sucrose, celery, lemongrass, etc.), others classified as PNPPs are not harmless. For example, decoctions of aloe vera leaves used as a bio-stimulant are on the list of probable carcinogens. This effect has been established by experiments on rats (4) and curiously, nobody is calling for a ban on this substance. Glyphosate, recently classified by the IARC (a) as a probable carcinogen, has become the bête noire of environmental NGOs, but not aloe vera.

Most natural remedies used in agriculture for hundreds of years, or even millennia, have never been tested for their benefits/risks. Their supposed properties are based on mostly empirical observations propagated from generation to generation. However, it would be very useful if all the checks were carried out to find out whether these substances are really effective and whether they do not present hidden risks for human health and/or the environment, as was the case with rotenone, which was used for many years in organic farming before it was banned when researchers discovered that it promotes Parkinson’s disease.

I understand that some people are attracted by cultivation practices that are more respectful of the environment, just as it is normal to be concerned about preserving one’s health. I have even noticed that experienced gardeners have been tempted by the promises of the various forms of organic agriculture (natural agriculture, permaculture, biodynamic agriculture, etc.), which have been lumped together under the heading of agroecology, whose very broad scope, which goes beyond a scientific position, allows anyone to claim to be a part of it. If we were to gather together all the nonsense written here and there claiming to be agroecology, we could write an encyclopaedia..

How did we get here?

There is a way of thinking in our society that deals with fundamental issues related to health, new technologies, agriculture and the environment, most often according to the methods of pseudo-sciences (b). This way of thinking, known as ecologism (or environmentalism), which is made up of multiple ideological and philosophical currents, claims to derive from a science; ecology.

The environmental problems caused by human activities and in particular intensive agriculture are real and there is no question of denying them. But it is unreasonable to believe that solutions to these problems can be found by spreading fear of new technologies, returning to the archaic farming methods of our ancestors and trusting in the magic powders of the witch doctors and bonesetter.

Everyone agrees on the principle of significantly reducing the use of pesticides, restoring soil biodiversity, converting to a more environmentally friendly form of agriculture… However, the solutions proposed must be realistic and validated by rigorous scientific studies. However, because they are not based on a credible scientific approach, the solutions proposed by the various schools of ecology are most often retrograde, misleading and illusory when they are not contrary to the desired goals.

From the utopian and appealing principles promoted by the ideologists of ecologism to their concrete application in the field, how many market gardeners and amateur gardeners have found themselves with disappointments and unenthusiastic results that they could have avoided if they had been better informed!

a) IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
b) Pseudo-science: knowledge that appears to be scientific but does not meet the criteria of the scientific method.