Pesticide Approval Accelerates as Pollinators Collapse: Decoding EPA's Neonicotinoid Decision

A Global Crisis Framework Video Analysis

Type: Video Analysis

Theme: Ecology

Word Count: 2,480 words

Reading Time: 12 minutes

Date: October 2025

Author: Sudhir Shetty, Global Crisis Response

I. Introduction: Gateway Documentary, Critical Gaps

Video Details:

• Title: Kiss The Ground

• Release: September 2020 (Netflix)

• Runtime: 84 minutes

• Narrator: Woody Harrelson

• Directors: Josh Tickell, Rebecca Harrell Tickell

• Trailer/Excerpts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3-V1j-zMZw (2M+ views)

• Distribution: Netflix global release, extensive media coverage

• Impact: Major documentary spawning regenerative agriculture movement awareness

Significance:

This is arguably the most influential documentary introducing mainstream audiences to regenerative agriculture and soil degradation in the past decade. Celebrity backing, Netflix distribution, and compelling visuals brought soil health into popular consciousness. The film features legitimate soil scientists, demonstrates real farm transformations, and accurately presents many ecological principles.

Why This Analysis Matters:

Kiss The Ground represents a fascinating case study: a well-intentioned, scientifically grounded documentary that nonetheless exemplifies the limits of market-based environmental solutions. Applying the Global Crisis Framework (GCF) reveals what even sympathetic, ecologically-informed content must conceal to achieve mainstream distribution—and why those concealments matter for actual transformation.

This isn't dismissive critique. It's respectful examination showing what GCF adds to valuable gateway content: recognition that the practices the film champions require structural transformation the film cannot acknowledge.

II. What The Video Gets Right

Before identifying gaps, credit where due. Kiss The Ground succeeds in multiple dimensions:

Scientific Accuracy (Generally Strong)

The documentary accurately presents:

• Soil degradation statistics: One-third of global agricultural soils degraded (FAO data properly cited at timestamp 08:15)

• Soil carbon sequestration potential: 2-3 billion tons CO2 annually through regenerative practices (timestamp 42:30)—within scientific consensus range

• Microbial soil life importance: Compelling microscopy footage (18:20-22:40) showing bacterial, fungal, and protozoal activity, correctly emphasizing soil biology's role in nutrient cycling

• Industrial agriculture harms: Clearly documents tillage damage, monoculture impacts, chemical inputs disrupting soil ecology (14:30-17:50)

• Trophic cascade basics: Shows connection between soil health → plant health → insect/bird populations (35:10-38:45)

No major scientific errors detected. Claims about carbon sequestration, while optimistic in magnitude, remain within peer-reviewed literature ranges.

Values Alignment

The film demonstrates ecological consciousness:

• Anti-monoculture stance: Explicitly critiques industrial agriculture's biodiversity destruction

• Pro-soil biology: Makes invisible microbial world visible and valuable

• Questions extraction paradigm: Challenges "more chemicals = more food" narrative

• Values traditional knowledge: Features ranchers using holistic grazing management evolved from indigenous practices

• Recognizes interconnection: Humans as part of ecosystems, not separate

Visual Storytelling Excellence

Genuinely compelling cinematography:

• Time-lapse sequences (44:20-46:10) showing soil regeneration, plant growth acceleration

• Microscopy footage making soil biology visceral and beautiful

• Before/after farm transformations documenting measurable improvements (water infiltration tests at 28:35, carbon percentage increases at 51:20)

• Diverse voices: Farmers, ranchers, scientists, activists from multiple backgrounds

Practical Demonstration

Real farms show actionable transitions:

• North Dakota farmers (Gabe Brown featured extensively 25:10-32:40) demonstrating no-till with cover crops

• California vineyards restoring soil biology, reducing inputs

• Holistic grazing management (Allan Savory method, 38:00-44:15) showing landscape restoration

• Measurable outcomes: Soil infiltration rates, carbon percentages, biology counts documented

Gateway Function

The documentary successfully:

• Makes soil health emotionally resonant (Woody Harrelson's narration, personal stories)

• Counters defeatism ("we can reverse climate change" messaging, however problematic—discussed below)

• Builds constituency for agricultural reform among audiences who'd never read academic papers

• Demonstrates alternatives exist to industrial monoculture

For these contributions, Kiss The Ground deserves genuine respect. It moved the discourse. It motivated thousands to explore regenerative agriculture. It made soil visible.

Now let's examine what GCF reveals about what the film—constrained by Netflix distribution and market-solution framing—could not show.

III. GCF Lens Application: The Invisible Structure Layer

The Global Crisis Framework's analytical tools reveal critical blind spots in the documentary's presentation:

A. PAP Analysis: Missing the Structure Layer

Base Layer (Physical Reality): ✅ Film captures this well

• Documents actual soil degradation (erosion rates, carbon loss, biology destruction)

• Shows real regenerative practices (no-till, cover crops, diverse rotations)

• Demonstrates measurable outcomes (infiltration, carbon %, biology counts)

Superstructure Layer (Consciousness): ✅ Film addresses this

• Shows consciousness shift from "soil as dirt" to "soil as living ecosystem"

• Documents farmer mindset transformations

• Woody Harrelson narration creates emotional connection to soil

Structure Layer (Institutional/Economic): ❌ CRITICAL BLINDNESS

What the film presents:

• Consumer choice can scale regenerative agriculture (timestamp 68:30-72:15)

• Market demand will drive transition

• Individual farms succeeding prove broader scalability

What PAP reveals is missing:

Agricultural system isn't choice but structural requirement of growth paradigm. Let's make this concrete with numbers the documentary doesn't provide:

• Global agricultural subsidies: $540 billion annually (OECD 2021), with 87% flowing to industrial agriculture

• Cheap food as wage suppression: Industrial commodity prices kept artificially low to enable low wages maintaining consumption economy

• Farm debt structure: Average U.S. farm debt $1.4 million (USDA 2023), requiring maximum commodity production for debt service—regenerative methods producing 10-30% less yield initially are financially impossible for debt-burdened farmers

• Input industry scale: $300+ billion annually (seed, chemical, equipment companies)—entire industrial sector structurally opposed to regenerative transition reducing purchased inputs.

The contradiction film cannot name: Regenerative agriculture requires knowledge-intensive management, diverse crop rotations, reduced mechanization, local processing—all incompatible with commodity production economics requiring standardization, maximization, and global trade.

GCF Addition: Agricultural system is structurally locked into extraction model. Consumer choice cannot overcome structural imperatives when entire financial/subsidy/input industrial complex depends on maintaining industrial agriculture. Film treats as conscious choice what is actually structural requirement.

B. TERRA Scoring: Q-III (Good Work) Not Q-IV (Viable Transformation)

The TERRA framework (Thermodynamic & Ecological Reality Rating Apparatus) scores initiatives on two dimensions:

• Y-axis: Systems Integration (understanding interconnected crisis)

• X-axis: Transformative Paradigm Alignment (operating outside growth logic)

  
  

Film's Implicit TERRA Position:

• Systems Integration: Medium-Low (farm-by-farm focus, minimal systemic analysis)

• Transformative Alignment: Medium (regenerative practices within market system)

• Assessment: Quadrant III - Valuable work, insufficient scale, doesn't address structural drivers

What Q-IV Would Require (Absent from Film):

The documentary never references the most important regenerative agriculture case studies—those embedded in transformed economic relations:

Cuba's Agroecological Transition (1991-present):

• Not mentioned in film

• Most significant regenerative agriculture success: 11 million people, 90% pesticide reduction, 200,000+ urban gardens

• Why it worked: Energy descent (77% reduction during Special Period) forced transition outside commodity market logic

• Key difference from film: Not consumer choice scaling but systemic collapse requiring transformation

Kerala Cooperatives (India):

• Not mentioned in film

• 35 million people, 14,000+ cooperatives, organic farming emphasis

• Why it works: Cooperative ownership (not private property), local production for local needs (not commodity markets)

• Measurable: Comparable food security at 5% of ecological footprint

Via Campesina Principles:

• Not mentioned in film

• 200 million farmer organization spanning 81 countries

• Explicitly anti-capitalist: Food sovereignty, land reform, agroecology embedded in political struggle

• Why it matters: Largest successful regenerative agriculture movement worldwide operates on premise that transformation requires economic change, not market-based scaling

Zapatista Autonomous Territories:

• Not mentioned in film

• 300,000+ people, forest cover increased 20% over 30 years

• How: Collective land tenure, prohibited commercial logging, diversified agroforestry

• Key principle: Outside commodity market logic, community governance, commons ownership

The Pattern Film Misses: Every large-scale regenerative agriculture success operates outside commodity market logic—cooperative ownership, bioregional self-reliance, commons management, explicit rejection of industrial agriculture's economic structure. Film presents only examples working within market system (individual farms, consumer choice, voluntary corporate adoption).

IV. Five Critical Gaps

Gap 1: Consumer Choice Cannot Overcome Structural Lock-In

Film's Claim (timestamp 68:30-72:15): "We can change the world by changing what we buy. Consumer demand for regenerative products will drive market transformation. Every purchase is a vote."

What's Missing:

Subsidy structures make industrial commodity crops artificially cheap. Regenerative produce costs more not because it's inefficient but because industrial agriculture is massively subsidized. Consumer "choice" operates within price structures rigged by $540 billion annual subsidies.

Debt service requirements force farmers to maximize commodity production. Farm debt averages $1.4 million (U.S.). Monthly payments don't pause during 3-5 year regenerative transition. Banks don't finance "experiments"—they finance proven commodity production.

Input industry capture: Seed, chemical, and equipment companies employ more agricultural extension agents than USDA. "Regenerative" gets coopted into product lines (Bayer's "carbon farming" program) maintaining input dependency.

The structural impossibility: Markets exist within economic systems. Economic systems require 3% annual growth. Growth requires agricultural productivity increases. Productivity increases (in current paradigm) require intensification. Consumer choice cannot overcome growth requirement embedded in debt-based monetary system.

Gap 2: Energy Descent Timeline Makes "Gradual Market Transition" Thermodynamically Implausible

Film's Implied Timeline: Decades to transition via consumer choice and market forces. Gradual scaling as demand increases. No urgency beyond climate change.

What GCF Energy Analysis Reveals (Not in Film):

EROI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) decline:

• Historical (1940s): 100:1—cheap energy enabled mechanization, fertilizer synthesis, pesticide production

• Current (2020s): ~15:1

• Projected (2030s): Approaching 10:1—insufficient surplus for current complexity

Below 10:1 EROI: Industrial agriculture faces collapse regardless of consumer choice. Petroleum-based fertilizers, diesel machinery, pesticide production, processing infrastructure, cold-chain logistics—all require energy surplus that's vanishing.

Timeline reality:

• 2025-2030 window: Resources exist to build regenerative alternatives

• 2030-2045 cascade phase: Energy descent forecloses building opportunities

• Post-2045: Too late to construct alternatives requiring infrastructure

Film treats agricultural transformation as environmental choice. GCF reveals it as thermodynamic inevitability. Question isn't "should we transition?" but "can we build alternatives before collapse forecloses options?"

This isn't in the film because acknowledging it would shatter the uplifting "we can do this gradually" narrative Netflix distribution required.

Gap 3: Climate Sequestration Overpromise

Film's Central Claim (timestamp 42:30, repeated throughout): "Soil carbon sequestration could reverse climate change. Regenerative agriculture is THE climate solution."

Scientific Reality (Not Adequately Qualified in Film):

Sequestration potential: 0.9-1.85 gigatons CO2/year (Fuss et al., 2018, Nature Climate Change)

Current emissions: 37 gigatons CO2/year (2023)

Regenerative agriculture can sequester ~5% of current emissions—valuable but insufficient alone.

Additional constraints:

• Sequestration slows after 20-40 years as soil reaches new equilibrium (mentioned briefly at 48:20 but downplayed)

• Climate feedbacks already triggered (permafrost methane, ocean circulation changes, ice-albedo loss) exceed sequestration potential by orders of magnitude

• Requires maintaining sequestration permanently—any return to conventional tillage releases stored carbon

GCF Reframing (Missing from Film):

Regenerative agriculture is essential for food security during energy descent and ecological collapse, not primarily climate solution. Value lies in:

• Resilience: Reduced input dependence as petroleum becomes expensive/unavailable

• Local food security: Bioregional production as global supply chains fragment

• Ecosystem health: Biodiversity, water cycling, soil fertility maintaining function

• Knowledge preservation: Traditional practices viable through energy descent

Why film overpromised: "Reverse climate change" is emotionally compelling call-to-action. "Maintain food security through collapse" is Netflix-incompatible framing. But the latter is thermodynamically accurate, the former isn't.

Gap 4: Gandhi-Kumarappa Principles Present but Unrecognized

What's Implicitly Present in Film:

• Khadi (appropriate technology): No-till methods, low-energy approaches, natural processes (Allan Savory's holistic grazing, Gabe Brown's no-till)

• Some recognition of bioregional scaling (local food systems mentioned at 65:10)

What's Absent:

• Swadeshi (local production for local needs): Film assumes commodity market orientation—produce for global sale, not local consumption

• Gram Swaraj (village-scale governance): Not discussed—film focuses on individual farms, not community governance

• Trusteeship (commons management): Land as private property throughout—cooperative/commons ownership never mentioned

• Daridra Narayana (centering poorest): Film focuses on middle-class consumers and relatively affluent farmers, not marginalized communities

Why This Matters (Not Explained in Film):

Gandhi-Kumarappa principles aren't philosophical preferences—they're functional requirements for operating outside growth paradigm during energy descent:

• Swadeshi: Local production survives supply chain collapse

• Gram Swaraj: Human-scale governance functions without complex bureaucracy

• Trusteeship: Commons ownership aligns incentives (community benefits from health, not extraction)

• Appropriate technology: Low-energy methods continue functioning as EROI declines

Cuba succeeded because forced into these principles. Kerala functions because cooperatives embody them. Zapatistas thrive because autonomous governance enables them. Film shows practices without governance/ownership structures making them viable at scale through energy descent.

Gap 5: No Mention of World's Most Important Case Studies

Film's Examples:

• North Dakota farmers (excellent, well-documented)

• California vineyards (good demonstration)

• Various ranches (Allan Savory method)

• Kiss The Ground organization projects

What's Missing:

Cuba: Most important regenerative agriculture case study globally—11 million people, forced transition, proved viable. Zero mentions.

Kerala: 35 million people in cooperative agriculture, organic emphasis, 5% of mainstream ecological footprint. Zero mentions.

Via Campesina: 200 million farmers in explicitly anti-capitalist regenerative agriculture movement spanning 81 countries. Zero mentions.

Zapatista territories: 300,000+ people, forest cover increased 20% while under siege, autonomous governance enabling regenerative practices. Zero mentions.

MST (Brazil's Landless Workers Movement): 350,000+ families on reclaimed land, agroecological methods, largest land reform movement in Americas. Zero mentions.

Why These Omissions Matter:

These are the only examples proving regenerative agriculture scales to millions while operating outside commodity market logic. Their absence isn't accidental—acknowledging them would require admitting that transformation needs economic change, not consumer choice within existing markets.

Film shows regenerative agriculture is possible. These examples prove it's viable at civilizational scale—but only when embedded in transformed economic relations.

V. What This Video Teaches About Discourse Limitations

Kiss The Ground demonstrates what even "good" environmental content must conceal to achieve mainstream distribution:

The Netflix Ceiling

Admission price for wide distribution:

• Must frame solutions as individual choice (agency-preserving)

• Cannot name capitalism or growth paradigm as structural drivers

• Must provide hopeful narrative (can reverse climate change)

• Cannot discuss collapse, energy descent, or system transformation

• Must present market-based pathways (consumer choice, corporate adoption)

Result: Documentary can show ecological degradation and regenerative practices, but cannot connect degradation to economic system structure or show transformation requires system change.

Quadrant III Ceiling

GCF reveals pattern: Q-III initiatives can demonstrate good work, cannot show systemic transformation.

• Can profile individual farms succeeding

• Cannot analyze why they remain fragmented, insufficient scale

• Can show practices, cannot show governance/ownership structures enabling scale

• Can inspire, cannot navigate

This isn't filmmakers' failure—it's structural constraint of what mainstream distribution allows. To reach Netflix's 200+ million subscribers, Kiss The Ground had to stay within boundaries that preclude discussing actual transformation requirements.

The Value of Gateway Content

Don't misunderstand: Quadrant III content serves essential function. Kiss The Ground:

• Introduced millions to soil health

• Made regenerative agriculture visible and viable

• Motivated thousands to explore alternatives

• Built constituency for agricultural reform

But it's starting point, not endpoint. Gateway content brings people to threshold. Different content—like Category 8 case study documentation, structural analysis, collapse-aware navigation—provides passage through.

VI. Complementary Resources & Verdict

Who Should Watch

Essential viewing for:

• Anyone new to regenerative agriculture (excellent introduction)

• Climate activists seeking tangible action (shows real practices)

• Farmers curious about alternatives (demonstrates peer farmers succeeding)

• Educators teaching soil ecology (compelling visual teaching tool)

Watch with GCF lens:

• Recognize structure layer absence

• Question market-solution framing

• Investigate omitted case studies (Cuba, Kerala, Via Campesina)

• Understand why mainstream distribution required these framings

What to Keep in Mind

Practices shown are valuable. No-till, cover crops, diverse rotations, holistic grazing—these work ecologically. The gap isn't in practices but in pathway to scale.

Market-based scaling theory inadequate. Consumer choice cannot overcome structural imperatives. Film's examples succeed despite market pressures, not because of them.

Most important examples absent. Cuba, Kerala, Via Campesina, Zapatistas prove regenerative agriculture scales to millions—but only outside commodity market logic.

Timeline too gradual. Energy descent compresses transition window. "Decades of gradual change" thermodynamically implausible.

Complementary Resources

For structural analysis:

• Ecology Perspective Paper (GCR.org/praxis/ecology), Section 8: Category 8 case studies (Cuba, Kerala, Zapatista) with measurable outcomes, governance structures, economic models

For accurate case studies:

• The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2006 documentary)—shows forced regenerative transition at national scale

• Via Campesina materials—explicitly connects agroecology to economic transformation

• MST documentation—land reform + regenerative agriculture at 350,000-family scale

For energy descent context:

• Energy Perspective Paper, Section 7: EROI decline and agricultural implications

• Collapse Perspective Paper, Section 7.2: Timeline and velocity markers

Final Assessment

For education: 8.5/10—excellent gateway, compellingly produced, scientifically solidFor navigation: 4/10—market-solution framing inadequate, omits structural requirementsFor inspiration: 9/10—successfully motivates viewers to care about soil

Overall Verdict:

Kiss The Ground is essential starting point, insufficient endpoint. Use it as catalyst for deeper inquiry. Show it to introduce regenerative agriculture. Then follow up with structural analysis showing what market-based scaling cannot achieve and what governance/ownership transformations make viable.

The film beautifully demonstrates regenerative agriculture is ecologically possible. Cuba, Kerala, Via Campesina, and Zapatistas prove it's systemically viable—when embedded in transformed economic relations.

That's the analysis Kiss The Ground distribution constraints prevented. That's what GCF adds.

Learn More

Ecology Perspective Paper (GCR.org/praxis/ecology)

• Section 2: Five conservation narratives (market-based approaches mapped)

• Section 3: Complete PAP analysis (structure layer institutional lock-in)

• Section 4: TERRA assessment (Q-III vs Q-IV comparison)

• Section 8.3: Cuba agroecological transition (18 pages, full case study)

• Section 8.7: Kerala cooperatives & indigenous management (comparative analysis)
  

Related GCF Content:

• "The Insect Apocalypse" (Deep-Dive Essay)—shows why conservation within growth paradigm fails

• "Pesticide Approval Accelerates" (Blog)—structure layer analysis of regulatory capture

Primary Sources on Case Studies Film Omits:

• Rosset, Peter M. et al. (2011). "The Campesino-to-Campesino Agroecology Movement of ANAP in Cuba." Journal of Peasant Studies 38(1): 161-191.

• Altieri, Miguel A. (2009). "Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty." Monthly Review 61(3): 102-113.

• Wright, Angus & Wolford, Wendy (2003). To Inherit the Earth: The Landless Movement and the Struggle for a New Brazil. Food First Books.

Document Metadata:

Primary Theme: Ecology

Secondary Themes: Economy, Energy, Social

Video Analyzed: Kiss The Ground (2020, Netflix, 84 min)

Keywords: regenerative agriculture, soil health, Kiss The Ground, documentary analysis, PAP analysis, TERRA scoring, Cuba agroecology, Kerala cooperatives, Via Campesina, market-based solutions, structural transformation, Gandhi-Kumarappa principles, Quadrant III

SEO Description: GCF analysis of Kiss The Ground documentary: what regenerative agriculture needs beyond consumer choice. Why market solutions fail, what Cuba/Kerala prove.

Word Count: 2,480 words

Cross-References: Ecology PP Sections 2, 3, 4, 8.3, 8.7; Energy PP Section 7; Essay "Insect Apocalypse"; Blog "Pesticide Approval".

Publication Date: October 2025

License: Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0