Feeding the World: Conventional vs. Organic
Modern farming with pesticides, fertilizers, genetically modified crops, and modern farming equipment have allowed for great leaps in the production of food. Most societal advancements closely follow agricultural developments and discovery; note the Neolithic Revolution and the "Green Revolution". However, there has been a recent trend in the upper and middle classes of wealthy nations to return to organic farming.
Is this wrong morally, economically, or environmentally?
Conventional/"Modern" Farming
Side Score: 14
|
 |
Organic Farming
Side Score: 25
|
|
|
|
|
Organic food can only be eaten by the wealthy, upper classes who can afford the massive drop in efficiency organic farmers suffer. Organic crop yields are far lower and less dependable than those of traditionally grown crops, and we pay for that- literally- with prices between ten and fifty percent higher than traditional crops. Not everyone can afford to pay more for food, just as not everyone can afford nutritious food. Organic food is an elitist trend. Think about it: most people in third world countries eat organic crops, and only those in season. Most of them use no fertilizers, pesticides, or modern equipment. Very many of these people are malnourished, starving, and incapable of providing for themselves and their families- relying on non-organic food aid from rich countries to help them survive. The drought cycle in Kenya has gone from one every eight years to one every three, the desertification of Sudan has fueled genocide, and genetically modified crops can withstand droughts- however, food aid is sent instead of seed. Wars are fought because farmland is no longer good for traditional farming. Many have serious nutritional possibilities. In areas where rice is a staple, Vitamin A deficiencies are a huge problem, and are the leading cause of preventable blindness. Yes, people are blind because they are not well nourished, even if they have enough to eat. Their organic rice cannot give them everything they need. To help solve this problem, bioengineering companies have made rice with beta-carotene (a precursor to Vitamin A, which it is metabolized into Vitamin A) in an effort to prevent this. Yes, it is a social issue (as is all malnutrition), but it can be helped by non-social means. Fertilizers and pesticides led to the last leap in farming capabilities, but they are needed every season and can be environmentally harmful; the next step is genetically modified food crops, or GM crops. GM foods have many of benefits. Some have (natural) pesticides in their tissues, reducing or eliminating the need to spray. If plants could be made to fix nitrogen, then many of the nitrogen based chemical fertilizers (which are the most significant of polluting fertilizers) could be eliminated. Monocultures are a problem- and yes, they are, and, yes, GM crops are generally genetically almost identical. However, most other food crops are almost identical anyway (Irish potato famine, anyone), and this isn't a new problem. If everyone ate organically, then the amount of farmland needed would increase exponentially. Our encroachment upon wilderness would increase even more. The Amazon is being rapidly destroyed for farmland, which we will need more of due to booming populations around the world. Can we really justify using the farmland we have less efficiently? Is that the right route? Locally grown food from small farmers with low carbon emissions is great, don't get me wrong. However, it's not always practical and it's not always best, nor is it always the lowest carbon option. Many local food providers use distribution hubs similar to those of corporate competitors, because it is both the most inexpensive and the least carbon-heavy way of transporting. For instance, if the Middle East stopped growing wheat ( a notoriously thirst crop) in favor of something less water intensive, the carbon cost of importing the wheat from a more wet area by low-carbon means (think trains! those are nice.), they could save carbon because they wouldn't need to desalinate and treat massive amounts of water. If you buy tomatoes from twenty miles away from a little farm who isn't exactly in the right climate, who maybe has to fight off more pests and the heat means more water, with an old inefficient tractor and old technology, etc, etc, the carbon cost may be greater than if you buy non organic tomatoes that came a low-energy route (trains rather than trucks, for instance). Furthermore, organic food is not necessarily healthier. Eating more fruits and vegetables in a balanced diet will make you more healthy, but most chemical aids used in first world countries in this day and age are very safe and do not affect the health of those who consume them. Preservatives in processed foods may be a different story, but our expected lifespan as a species has still more than doubled in the last thousand years; do we need the extra six months expunging all “unnatural” chemicals from our diet would bring us? Or would we find ourselves with lives once more shortened, from malnutrition and wars over resources? The world will never know. Side: Conventional/
Since you note that most of the third world eats organic seasonal crops because they cannot afford chemical pesticides, it's difficult to also argue that organic food "is an elitist trend that can only be eaten by the wealthy upper classes." Second, organic yields are lower but nonetheless viable, at a far greater consumption rate of energy and water. See, e.g., "Can Organic Farming 'Feed the World'?", http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html "With the world population passing the 6 billion mark last October, the debate over our ability to sustain a fast growing population is heating up. Biotechnology advocates in particular are becoming very vocal in their claim that there is no alternative to using genetically modified crops in agriculture if 'we want to feed the world'. Actually, that quote might be true. It depends what they mean by 'we.' It's true if the 'we can feed the world' refers to the agribusiness industry, which has brought the world to the brink of food disaster and is looking for a way out. Biotech just may be their desperation move. 'We'll starve without biotech,' is the title of an opinion piece by Martina McGloughlin, Director of the Biotechnology program at the University of California, Davis. Could be. Modern industrial agricultural — which forms the foundation for biotech — ranks as such a dismal failure that even Monsanto holds them up as the evil alternative . . . Not surprisingly, agribusiness conglomerates and their supporters dismiss organic farming, claiming it produces yields too low to feed a growing world population. Dennis Avery, an economist at the Hudson Institute — funded by Monsanto, Du Pont, Dow, and Novartis among others — had this to say in a recent ABC News' 20/20 broadcast. 'If overnight all our food supply were suddenly organic, to feed today's population we'd have plowed down half of the world's land area not under ice to get organic food ... because organic farmers waste so much land. They have to because they lose so much of their crop to weeds and insects.' In fact, as a number of studies attest, organic farming methods can produce higher yields than conventional methods. Moreover, a worldwide conversion to organic has the potential to increase food production levels -- not to mention reversing the degradation of agricultural soils and increase soil fertility and health." (An analysis of five different studies of organic versus conventional farming follows as bulk of article.) . . . and see "Organic Farms Viable Despite Lower Yields, Study Finds," http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm "A 21-year Swiss study of organic and conventional farming systems is providing new evidence that large-scale organic farming is economically viable and environmentally sustainable over the long haul, although crop yields still fall short of conventional methods. The study, published in today's issue of Science, reported that organic farming methods used 50% less energy, 97% less pesticide and as much as 51% less fertilizer than conventional methods. After two decades of cultivation, the soil in the study's test plots was still rich in nutrients, resistant to erosion and readily water absorbent. Overall, organic crop yields averaged about 20% less than conventionally farmed crops, although the differences covered a wide range. Potato yields, for example, were 58% to 66% of those produced by conventional means. The production of wheat reached 90% of a conventional harvest."
Third, since as you say, "wars are fought because farmland is no longer good for traditional farming," it's very hard to see how rendering that land even less useful for sustainable farming by denutriating and poisoning the soil via conventional extra-high-yield farming would do anything other than fuel the problem. Fourth, a key component of organic farming is sustainability of land use. Conventional farming sometimes depletes soil in ways that render it unsuitable for diverse or long-term agricultural uses. In the long run, it uses more land because it destroys the land as it uses it. Finally, part of the reason that there is "not enough food" is simply that the U.S. lives excessively. The solution we need is not to artificially increase production in the short term, but to moderate our consumption over the long term. "One American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese; 6 Mexicans; 13 Chinese; 31 Indians; 128 Bangladeshis; 307 Tanzanians; [or] 370 Ethiopians . . . Americans eat 815 billion calories of food each day - that's roughly 200 billion more than needed - enough to feed 80 million people. Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily." -- Consumption by the United States, http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/ Side: Organic Farming
Why does it really matter? You're basically renting it anyways... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ Side: Conventional/
You take too many things literally. :) You haven't heard the phrase, "You don't buy food, you rent it?" I'll try to put it into simple terms without being gross. It involves pulling the '#2' in the bathroom, if you know what I mean ;). That is what I mean by renting food. Side: Conventional/
2
points
More food > Less food Organic farming is a method by which one sacrifices quantity for quality. Granted, we could feed the world with the food we have now, but that doens't matter. The world isn't getting fed. So until it is, I don't think we should pass up the chance to make more food. Side: Conventional/
1
point
Just because it's natural, that doesn't mean it's better... Side: Conventional/"Modern" Farming
|
Okay, granted, both the Mayo Clinic and the London School have said that eating organic versus conventional foods doesn't make a big difference to health, and the study out of the University of Copenhagen agrees. I am still suspicious of the tens of thousands of tons of pesticides and hormones that are annually dumped into the food. And I just don't see the benefit in dicking around with the food sources that the human organism evolved to be able to eat. And, I am terrified of sterile-seed crops, which are the darlings of GMO-producing companies. There is real concern that natural pollenation between GMO and non-GMO crops could cause the non-GMO crops to also produce sterile seed. That means famine. Famine, needless to say, is bad, especially insofar as feeding the world is concerned. Instituting a near-monopoly on the world's annual food supply is also bad because it undermines sustainable agriculture, and we need sustainable agriculture if we want to feed the world and keep on feeding it. Conventional agribusiness does the opposite of sustainability. "[As a result of their agribusiness acquistitions] Monsanto and DuPont will have acquired control of the dominant share of the U.S. seed market for commercial grain and oilseed crops, including half of the market for soybeans and corn . . . Enhanced by such gifts as the terminator gene from Department of Agriculture (USDA) that causes seeds to become sterile after one season, AHP-Monsanto and DuPont will be able to dictate seed prices, growing practices, marketing and other terms of management. Growers cannot object. Seeds for next year's crops must be purchased, and alternative uses for croplands are few." (R. Leonard, "American Agriculture: Wreaking Biological Havoc," Journal of the Community Nutrition Institute, 1998). Add to this the fact that most organic farms (even organic agribusinesses) generally make a point of using more ecologically sound farming practices, conserving water, re-nutriating soil, etc., all of which are good for sustainable agriculture, and thus good for feeding the world. The world's people got fed (more or less) without GMOs and commercial pesticides for tens of thousands of years. And, they can still be fed without screwing around with the biochemical composition of the food. And when and if they can't, it's time to question fundamentally whether we have too many people and/or too much consumerism or what the hell the problem is. What I don't understand is why I have to pay three times as much so that I can NOT have extraneous foreign chemicals poured all over my food. Side: Organic Farming
1
point
When can we justify chemical aids, then? After the whole third world has starved to death, and people of first world countries are malnourished and must fight over fertile land? The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving.(http://library.thinkquest.org/ Even in the first world, organic food isn't better for you, as you admit; however, the crop yields are much lower than conventional farming (which is why it's so much more expensive). While I understand your concerns about pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, they're rigorously tested for safety. Hormones are a little scarier, and I am first in line to admit that. There is an understandable push for animals that have not been mistreated or given any sort of boost; however, I might point out the USDA definition of free-range, which is still applicable for organic food: “Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside.” This means that if a door on a chicken coop is open for five minutes a day, the chickens can be considered free range- even if they don’t actually go outside. Antibiotics are even scarier, because they increase the likelihood of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, and that is something I will freely admit. However, organic meat products don’t necessarily come from happy animals, frolicking in fields all day. Do research on whatever company you buy your meat from, and remember that organic products aren’t always the right option. For instance, “The impact of organic milk was singled out for doubts about its environmental-friendliness because, while having higher levels of nutrients and needing less fertilizer, its production generates more carbon dioxide emissions. Additionally, it takes up 80 per cent more land.” More land, more CO2 emissions, and a costly product- all with dubious health benefits- the land and energy used to produce organic food might be better used to provide nutritious food to those who can’t farm their own. If you’re worried about health, eat fewer processed products; if you’re worried about the environment, eat less meat. If you’re worried about GM crops, then you need to be reminded that they aren’t the only way to be competitive, and that they aren’t going to take over the world. Clearly they couldn’t overtake traditional food crops; for that to happen, EVERY food crop in the world would produce ONLY sterile seeds- we’re more likely to be caught in nuclear war. Alarmism is helping everyone go nowhere fast- or, mill about while screaming at the top of their lungs. Side: Conventional/
So first, as we both agree, pesticide and hormone exposures are potentially dangerous to health, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides are potentially dangerous to soil. We've got nothing to refute that. That alone suggests a big problem with conventional farming methods. "The harmful impact that conventional agriculture farmers reek on the environment include a myriad of things. The main issue is the degradation of soil. By farming a single crop year after year and using harmful agents, such as pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, can diminish the nutrient rich soil. This act then makes it almost impossible to grow anything in that area, let alone sustain the ecosystem and the organisms that rely on the surrounding habitat . . . Lastly, many of the artificial pesticides that farmers use to cut down on their pest population may kill the weeds and pest but also leave a harmful residue on our food. The USDA conducted a study that showed that the most commonly eaten produce items were 73%-90% contaminated with disease causing pesticides. Soon many of these pests grow resistant to the the pesticides and actually help breed more numerous and stronger pest communities. Pesticides not only kill the targeted pests but their natural predators as well, causing an imbalance in the entire environment . . . Over time, the only way to maintain production levels is to use more fertilizers, which causes an even larger global problem. Conventional farming is not sustainable to soil health nor is it to the people who consume inorganic products." -- Science Online, http://www.scionline.org/index.php/Pros_and_Cons_of_Organic_and_Conventional_Agriculture "Pesticide contamination isn't as much of a concern in meats and dairy products (animals may consume some pesticides, depending on their diet), but many scientists are concerned about the antibiotics being given to most farm animals: Many are the same antibiotics humans rely on, and overuse of these drugs has already enabled bacteria to develop resistance to them, rendering them less effective in fighting infection . . . Organic farming reduces pollutants in groundwater and creates richer soil that aids plant growth while reducing erosion, according to the Organic Trade Association. It also decreases pesticides that can end up in your drinking glass; in some cities, pesticides in tap water have been measured at unsafe levels for weeks at a time, according to an analysis performed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)." -- Redbook, "The Truth About Organic Foods," http://www.redbookmag.com/recipes-home/truth-about-organic-foods Now, I will agree that the USDA standards that define "organic," "transitional-organic," "free-range," etc. are somewhat dubious. And it may be true that organic food-producing animals are not frolicking about in fields. But that says nothing about the problems created by chemical fertilizers and pesticides and by hormones and antibiotics. Simply because the organics “solution” is imperfect as employed doesn't suggest to me that we should just persist with the problem. You're also correct that the single biggest environmental and health choice a person can make is to cut down on meat-eating. I haven't eaten meat in twenty years and I encourage others to choose a vegetarian lifestyle or to decrease their regular consumption of meat. But given that the McDonalds corporation alone has knocked a couple of holes in the South American rainforest each roughly equivalent to the size of France and has driven local "peasant" farmers into poverty in order to create more cattle-ranching land, I have great difficulty imagining how conventional meat farming is at all healthy for anyone. -- "McDonald's Linked to Rainforest Destruction," http://forests.org/archive/general/macfore.htm; and also see "Greenpeace Links McDonald's With Amazon Destruction," http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/ Crop yields themselves are not so much the problem as is land use. Again, meat production is a big land-killer here, and cutting down meat consumption (especially in the meat-lovin' USA) could free up significant amounts of land to be devoted to grain and other human-consumption crops - although one does of course also require soil that has not been de-nutriated by chemical agents in order to grow said crops. That being said, organic farming could not only contribute to “feeding the world” in the long term, but could also be profitable in both the short- and long-term for third world countries. See “Organic Farming in the World, and the Case Study of Morocco,” http://www.vulgarisation. Side: Organic Farming
It's wrong to conflate the science of food engineering with the current practices of the agribusiness industry. By applying science to the production of food via pesticides, genetic modification and whatnot, we can make it taste better, be healthier, get higher crop yields, make crops resistant to disease, etc, etc. I think we can agree that these are good things. Criticizing the agribusiness industry may be valid, but criticizing genetic modification and pesticides is just a specious appeal to nature. Side: Conventional/
2
points
It is absolutely possible to feed the world without using genetically modified foods and unhealthful methods, particularly if land stops being cleared for cattle grazing (which uses more resources and land than the production of fruits/vegetables) and conserve land and resources. Side: Organic Farming
1
point
2
points
This summer, I was lucky enough to go to New Zealand. New Zealand has a 7:1 ratio of sheep to people. Animals account for 50% of their carbon emissions, so I think it's safe to say those kiwis have their farming down. And not one factory farm exists in New Zealand. Of course, controversy always seems to arise when migrating various systems (see: socialism), governmental and otherwise, so I write this at the risk of sounding uninformed, and potentially overlooking things that might pose huge obstacles here in the United States. That said, however, organic foods are rising in popularity, as are other "good" eating trends; buying locally, in season, etc. These aren't always cost-effective, though I believe that, overall, they're better, somehow. Eating locally certainly cuts down on carbon emissions, if nothing else. And, it tastes good. Which is quite enough to satisfy me. Side: Organic Farming
2
points
What I have the biggest problem with is the mass-production of foodstuffs. This includes factory made Oreo's as well as factory farm beef. I miss when food was real. When you took real, honest ingredients, mixed them together, and called it a meal (or bread, or whatever it was you made out of those honest ingredients). Almost everything sold in stores today is fake food... Which certainly seems to be a step backwards for the human race. I prefer to eat organic when I can afford to, but, as pointed out, it's quite expensive to buy organic everything. But I hate the idea of chemicals sprayed on my food, or of my food being genetically engineered. It's so strange that the more natural your food is, the more expensive it becomes in contrast to its fake counterpart. Side: Organic Farming
1
point
where do you live? I ask this because there are many "organic" options that many don't ever explore and they are very affordable. For example there is a grocery store by my house that sells conventional and organic at almost the same price. The difference is literally a few cents. I know that some small farmers cannot afford to get the USDA organic certification yet they have the same or even higher standards...I've known of ppl who directly contact those farms and buy from them. Side: Organic Farming
1
point
2
points
FACTORY FARMING NEEDS TO BE REGULATED! To help with this project please take this survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XFQ6RSR It takes less than a minute and is only 4 short multiple choice questions. Also, if you're on facebook, join "I don't want to eat fake breasts!" http://www.facebook.com/ Side: Organic Farming
|
