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
The benefits of organic, local, and so-called sustainable food production is an elitist delusion. The health benefits are non-existant, and the minimal ecological benefits are not worth world starvation. Perhaps organic, local and sustainable techniques can support 1 or 2 billion people, what are the other 4 billion of us supposed to do? Starve.
I don't understand. How can we feed a steadily growing global population, if more and more people want to eat meat; and meat consumes 10 times more land than grain and vegetable foodstuffs for production; and soil is rapidly vanishing and/or being permanently ruined worldwide; and industrial/commercial scale agriculture is what is ruining it? Do you mean that we can feed more and more people "for a moment" in geological history, and then it's all over?
I came across this issue in an email from CREDO Action & clicked on the link to this broadcast in the footnotes. Boy was this an eye opener!
I, too, am disappointed that NPR/APM have ended up in the pockets of special interests. Is there no media outlet that is untainted anymore?
I am squarely in the camp of those who would prefer to eat food that is raised from non-GMO seeds, in organic (or close to that) soil, with natural fertilizers and pest control. I also realize that most of the food available to me is not produced that way. I do the best I can by buying as little processed food as possible & sometimes buying "organic" produce. I sometimes wonder how truly "organic" the produce is at the supermarket.
From what I have heard it is true that we already produce enough food to feed everyone in the world. The problem is in the distribution of it. It is hard to feed starving people in certain countries when the food supplied by humanitarian organizations is intercepted by tyrants for their own use. Of course you could wonder how was that food produced? How safe is most of that food?
Lost in all of this debate is the fact that it is possible to make food safe and increase its shelf life, making more food available simply because there is less spoilage and waste. The process is known as irradiation. It is perfectly safe, sterilizes the food and increases its shelf life exponentially, all without changing the flavor, texture or nutritive value. But it is little used because of the bugaboo word "radiation" within irradiation. Everyone thinks irradiation produces
"Frankenfoods", though it does not. If most foods were irradiated, there would be so much food available that no one should ever go hungry again. Except of course for the distribution problems.
As far as the overpopulation of the Earth is concerned, if the US and other highly developed countries would devote the money and policies to elevating the status of people in developing countries, the populations would fall as a matter of course. It has been shown over and over, that when a population does better economically and its members share in the benefits, the people become more educated, and the better they are educated, the fewer children they desire or need. When some of the inequities in this world are eliminated,
population numbers will take care of themselves.
The only correct comment this story contained was that the way we farm has to change. Previous generations fed themselves from their own land. Americans should start growing their own food at home. Like the solutions to many problems, the answer lies within us. We must start at the individual level to feed ourselves rather than relying on someone to feed us.
*sigh* I think this thread shows why people are so reluctant to work with the highly insular organic industry. As soon as someone suggests a hybrid solution, they get painted as trying to destroy the world and 'true' farming.. usually by people who do not know much about traditional farming in the first place. A place for all seems to be a dirty concept to them, and nothing but the complete eradication of industries and practices they do not like is enough...
This was not a well-rounded piece. I don't want to assume bias like others have done because of the Monsanto underwriting, but whether that's the case or not, the story was shallow and poorly researched. The conclusion might very well be true, but you don't do your listeners justice when you present the story in such a topical way.
Pages
