253
The non-organic future
A ladybug crawls on an organic bean plant growing in the land between tarmacs at the former El Toro Marine base in Orange County, Calif.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Tess Vigeland: The United Nations says a billion people go hungry on this planet each day. And the overall population is growing. Experts expect we'll top 9 billion by 2045. The looming question: How to feed everyone with limited resources? This week, several major foundations -- including Ford and Gates -- launched a $3 million a year initiative aimed at figuring out how to come up with the food we need.
From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Adriene Hill looks at what the answer might involve -- and what it might not.
Adriene Hill: The farmers markets in Los Angeles these days are piled high with organic strawberries and kale. To the contented shoppers, this is what the future should be -- fruits and veggies grown on small farms, nearby the city. But, get over it. This isn't the future -- not if we want to feed everyone.
Pedro Sanchez: If you ask me point blank whether organic-based farming is better than conventional, my answer is no.
That's Columbia University's Pedro Sanchez.
Sanchez: There are just too many of us, we just need too many nutrients.
And those nutrients come from plants that need nutrients that organic fertilizers can't always provide.
Sanchez: It's like a bank account, you've got to have a positive balance.
And if you deposit only organics he says...
Sanchez: You're going to go broke.
One reason experts say organic farming isn't the big-scale answer...
Mark Rosegrant: Organic production tends to have somewhat lower yields compared to non-organics.
Mark Rosegrant is with the International Food Policy Research Institute, an organization focused on sustainable ways to end hunger. He says going all organic would require a whole lot more land. Organic farming is, Rosegrant says, a niche market. It's not bad, per se, but...
Rosegrant: It's not an important part of the overall process to feed 9 billion people.
The Economist recently had a special issue on global food supplies. One piece ended with the thought that the reaction against commercial farming -- with it's dependence on chemicals -- is "a luxury of the rich."
So what does the future of farming look like? Rosegrant thinks that genetically-modified crops have to play a part -- especially as pollution causes the planet warms up.
Rosegrant: I think we do think it's part of the toolbox going forward, that for example to get some of the drought tolerance or other kinds of heat tolerance.
The future may also involve more creative farming.
Organic squash grows in the land between tarmacs at the former El Toro Marine base in Orange County, Calif.
AG Kawamura: We're in the middle of what used to be the El Toro Marine base. We're on an airport actually, and we're farming in the open areas between the tarmac.
AG Kawamura is a third-generation farmer. He also is the former California secretary of Agriculture. The afternoon sun bounces off concrete runways and rows of small organic yellow squash. Kawamura and his brother grow organic and conventional crops.
Kawamura: Globally, the idea, it's going to be a big tent. There's big agriculture, small agriculture, there's room for all.
When you grow lots of food, in lots of ways, in lots of places, Kawamura says, droughts and floods and bugs that chomp down on crops become less of a problem. The future may also involve eating differently.
Mark Bittman: We need to address what diet looks like in the developed world and what diet looks like in the developing world, and how to sort of balance things out.
Mark Bittman is a food columnist for the New York Times and the author of "The Food Matters Cookbook." His mantra -- more veggies, less meat. Animals takes a lot more water and food to grow than plants.
Bittman: We hear a lot about how the Chinese are eating more like us, but the reality is we need to be eating more like the Chinese.
For the billion of underfed people in the world today, there are a billion-and-a-half that are overweight. That too needs to change, Bittman says, as we all start thinking more about what we eat.
I'm Adriene Hill for Marketplace.
Vigeland: When do you buy organic? Adriene asked each of her experts that question. For their answers, and to share yours -- take a look at her blog post.
Read: A note from the editor
Pages
Obvious bias and complete lack of understanding of the big picture. Monsanto IS the problem. Part of the biotech cabal that cares nothing for the environment, human health or safety... it's all about money. They are part of this resident evil: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_creat...
Be careful about getting into the business of limiting population growth. Google George Bernard Shaw on you tube. A supposedly great humanitarian who advocates eugenics under a veneer of liberalism. Who advocated gassing people.You can see his speech, so ther's no denying it. There is an ecological movement that wants to encourage small producers (or at least not get in their way) which envisions small family producers produicing family food/local produce. It's the food freedom movement. But there is also a powerful eco-fascist movement which claims to be environmental but is really about creating an eco-fascist control grid. They want a small, easy to control slave-like population forced into cities and controlled. While the eites only can travel and enjoy the wide pristine wilderness which is only for them. They tend to promote UN bureacrats who launch pseudo humanitarian initiatives with a hidden agenda of increased corporate control.
The article states that many people go hungry everyday, yet our population is growing rapidly and that by 2045 we will hit 9 billion people. So my question is, why dont we stop world hunger and poor food quality at the source. Stop the populatipn from increasing at such a rapid pace, this way we will have a better chance of organic, eco friendly food.
although there may be lack of food in certain parts of the world, it doesnt mean that we should be eating foods that are not good for us. Organic food may be more expensive, but it is better for a persons overall heath which is most important to survival of man. f we produce more food conventionally there is a greater chance of diseases or birth defects than if we get as many people as we can to eat organically!
I hope that the Columbia researchers took a look at two important issues in their research:
(1) Caloric distribution: there is major political inequity in the way food is distributed in the world. If the measure of "enough" is "survival given equitable distribution", I doubt that the claim in this story is true. If it is not, then deducing that pesticides and GMOs are the answer is irresponsible.
(2) Additional caloric gains in communities typically leads to population growth. Jared Diamond presents a pretty succint description of this phenomenon, where greater food production hasn't demonstrated gains in nutrition, but rather larger populations of people that are fed at the levels prior to the agricultural boom. Without awareness and education on the effects of population growth, the "increased yields" become a viscious cycle that perpetuates the myth that we need to corporatize our food system for our own good.
They say there's room for all? The goal of corporate agriguclture is total monopoly control. Peasants/farmers having to buy monopoly patented GMO seeds at ever escalating prices is their dream. Saving your own seeds, growing a suburban garden is the greatest act of revolutionary defiance at this moment in history.
The reason for 3rd world failing agricuuture is that corporatate agriculural subsides here and in Europe undercut their African/Asian peasant agriculture which becomes uncompetitive. So the peasants are driven from the land by economics and starve. Likewise, wwithout governemt subsides of big ag here, our local produce by small farmers would be more competetive. I am already growwing most of my own fruits/veggies on my 1/4 acre suburban lot.And may even get chickems.
I recommend all people doing their utmost to exit the corporate food system by any peaceful means possible.
It is unsurprising that this GMO propaganda would target liberals through NPR.Liberals have been persuaded to abandon the peace movement and support war-without-end because they have a nice mascot with Obama. Now,if they can get the PC liberals to abandon their local/organic food ethics, then another domino barrier to corporate enslavement will fall.
There is no coexistence possible or organic & GMO foods. The GMO will contaminate the organic strains with it's genes & will produce off spring we've never seen before. Once the contamination occurs, there is no going back. My experience is that whenever "experts" speak on behalf of Monsanto & GMO foods, they are paid to do so. I was disheartened to hear this story from you. It was full of misinformation & Monsanto talking points. I suggest visiting www.MillionsAgainstMonsanto.com for more information.
I disagree with this article. Even though this is an unlikely scenario, I believe that if all of the farmers in the world were mobilised and were convinced to grow organic then the world would be able to survive on organic. We would need more farmers and farms, as well
people have been saying that organic farming is better and it just might be. but inorder to feed the amount of people that are on earth, organic farming will not work. there is also not enough space to start all this organic farming. organic farms may be better but there is just not enough space and to many people we must stick to traditional ways of farming.- TN
Pages
