Vandana Shiva is right to say that agricultural control should be in the hands of farmers themselves. Solutions imposed from the outside are rarely as effective as solutions devised from the inside, solutions that have worked over the course of many, many years. I am worried, however, by blanket condemnations of capitalism, as in "neither chemicals nor capitalism yields the promised benefits." Capitalism is the ONLY thing that can help farmers, whether they're in Kansas or Costa Rica. Farmers need access to markets, and access to markets means capitalism has to work for them. The terms of trade must be fair, and farmers must be able to choose their own production methods. But capitalism is the farmers' friend, not their enemy.

It's ironic that the heavy use of chemicals in agriculture is still being called "green"--and that they, whoever "they" are, get away with it. Since saving the planet seems to be everyone's business now, we're being bombarded by mainstream corporations offering green products and services. There's now even a line of "green weapons," since arms manufacturer BAE recently introduced recyclable explosives and reduced-lead bullets (since, obviously, lead in bullets can pose a risk to people)... But hey, "green" is good, right? Just as "natural" is a sign of quality on the labels of cosmetic products, even when the only natural product in the list of ingredients has been enriched with a host of unpronounceable chemical substances. Chemicals, however, are not green at all, in none of all the shades we know. Just what's the true colour of this Chemical Revolution?