Conclusion

Chapter 1 asked the question why agriculture seemed to be standardised across such a large area despite the fact that there are problems associated with genetic uniformity, which sits at the heart of this standardisation. Of these problems, those associated with pesticide use are rather better understood than that concerning crop vulnerability, though in fact any attempt to estimate the social and environmental costs of either are subject to huge uncertainties. Though citing selectively, I have attempted to show that even on the production criterion alone, alternatives do not suffer tremendously by comparison with modern agriculture. One must not lose sight of the impact of the relative distribution of research funding over time. This has been massively skewed in favour of high external input techniques, and given this, it is somewhat surprising that alternatives can still even hold a candle to high input approaches, let alone lay claim to being viable competing approaches (as, I suggest, they can).