http://www.springerlink.com/content/l12858476u034458/fulltext.pdf
I thought this paper was thought-provoking.
One sentence summary: compared to either pre-industrial agriculture or organic farming, modern agriculture is better for people, better for the environment, worse for farm animals.
Discuss (but only if you actually read the paper - it's only 5 pages long).
Friday, September 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Tempted to discuss without reading, but that would be cheating.
The point that organic produce becomes a viable option once consumers become wealthy enough that cost is no longer a constraint is interesting. It certainly does seem hypocritical for wealthy, developed countries to insist that developing countries "go organic" while not being willing themselves to do likewise.
It bothers me, though, that so few broad, generalizing statements were supported by citations. I also wonder about developing countries becoming completely reliant upon companies (mostly from developed countries) that patent their GMO seeds and accompanying fertilizers and pesticides? What about the long term effect of pesticides on native bees and the eventual effect on non-crop flora and fauna?
Anyway, an thought-provoking read. Thanks for sharing...
I think the site that linked to it (Sustainablog) mentioned that the author has a book coming out, so I guess more detail is forthcoming. I certainly had the feeling while reading the article that it was more of a summary than a comprehensive review.
I wanted to hear more in particular about the (inverse?) relationship between farm subsidies and responsible land stewardship. If that is true, there are a lot of policy implications.
One thing he didn't address at all is the fact that organic operation often (sometimes?) use more diverse crop varieties, while large-scale operations necessarily use just a few. And how does that affect pollinators and other aspects of agricultural ecology, etc.
Maybe the "ideal" agricultural system would have both: big-modern-commercial operations that provide high yields and make food affordable, and small-organic-warm-fuzzy farms that provide diversity. But with more regulations to protect livestock and encourage/subsidize sustainable practices.
So, still not having read the paper, I want to join the discussion. In conservation bio we covered that there were two very different ways that agriculture could be done to best serve conservation bio interests: 1) use as little land as possible, 2) grow diverse polycultures or fields with a small patch size without presicides or herbicides.
The issue, of course, is that these are mostly mutually exclusive and that higher yields are required if less land is to be used and higher yields require intensive specialization, chemical imputs, and perhaps GM crops.
My students never quite saw this as the interesting dilemma that I did.
I watched the DVD the Future of Food and in it Michael Pollen was asked about the high cost of organic food. He countered with "why is conventional food so cheap?" The video mad me so mad (the part about Monsanto suing farmers). I HIGHLY recommend it for an ecology class. http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
As for developing countries and organic: It seems to me that all the food in Haiti is probably organic. They can't afford fertilizers. I should look into that.
Ok - I need to read the article!
Post a Comment