Hi TC Sustainers: I liked the article below because the writer is looking for a "realistic" starting point in discussing & reclaiming our food production systems. Of course I'm still skeptical about the claims about biotech though I have consistently supported continued research tho a moratorium on commercial production. Of course labelling would be nice tho "the kiss of death" for frankenfoods. Obviously gm tech continues to expand tho we can continue to put pressure on research institutions like CU as well as federal agencies to do a better and more honest job of keeping an eye on where the $$$$ is coming from and going to, and of course what works and what doesn't. McWilliams echos the claims of biotech advocates "this technology could promote medium-scale diversified crop systems that enjoy higher yields on less land, a reduction in pesticide applications, healthier soil as a result of lowered tillage and access to drought-resistant crops suitable for subsistence production and commercial trade." Maybe but do we need it? Lastly his point that "organic ag cannot feed the world" has been refuted by many farmers and food thinkers. Good article to digest some contentious points about food. Tony Del Plato
INSIGHT Microgreens for the masses, beef for the elite, and other agrarian dreams By James E. McWilliams SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN http://www.statesman.com/search/content/editorial/stories/insight/07/20/0720farming.html Sunday, July 20, 2008 If there was a prize for the nation's most sustainable farmer, Eliot Coleman would be the winner. Hands down. Coleman, who runs Four Season Farm in Maine, has spent the past 40 years cultivating a broad range of crops with the purest organic methods. There are many accolades to bestow on Coleman's seamless operation, but the one that drops my jaw is something that anyone who keeps a backyard vegetable garden will appreciate: He forgoes all chemicals and suffers no insect infestations. Crop diversity and soil quality - Coleman's primary obsessions - have kept predacious weevils, hornworms, beetles and scales at bay. For the environmentalist, this is inspiring stuff. And, naturally, it's tempting to point to Coleman and conclude: There's the answer to wasteful industrial agriculture! Indeed, millions of consumers have done just that. We now "buy local," place "support organic" bumper stickers on our cars and make best-sellers of writers who have gone "back to the land" - all to pledge our allegiance to a Coleman-esque ethic of virtuous farming, eating and living. I'll admit that the sustainable aspect of Four Season Farm holds tremendous appeal as a model for the future of food. However, in the course of researching and writing a book on the history of agribusiness and insect control, I also know that feeding the nation - much less the world - according to the Eliot Coleman method might be theoretically possible, but it is, for all intents and purposes, an unrealistic (if not absurd) proposition in the here and now. History does not dictate the future, but it matters. And the story it tells is not encouraging. Since the 17th century, American farmers have been deforesting, monocropping, commercially expanding and generally wreaking agricultural havoc on the environment. We can beat the drum of sustainability until deafness sets in, but the fact of the matter is that, agriculturally speaking, we've got what we've got: a chemically dependent system of food production as entrenched as any American institution has ever been. Consumers should never accept our industrialized food system as it now operates. At the same time, we cannot deny our inheritance. If the system is going to be undone, it'll have to be undone gradually and from within. There will always be niches for the Eliot Colemans of the world - and that's a good thing. Pragmatism, however, dictates that consumers think about reforming an agricultural system that will inevitably use chemicals. Agricultural realpolitic makes much more sense to me than stumping for an ahistorical, radicalized replacement that would never be able to feed the 9.5 billion people predicted to be demanding food from the lean earth by 2050. Don't get me wrong. Eloquent agrarian reformers such as Coleman, Alice Waters and Michael Pollan have persuasively shifted public opinion in positive ways against industrialized food production and, in so doing, deserve praise for getting millions of Americans to ponder the sources of their food. They have done so, however, without being asked to contend with the strong likelihood that, should farmers today stop using chemicals, our food supply would be devastated. The only eaters left standing would be wealthy elites able to afford local produce. I'm sure microgreens that sell for $12 a pound are mouthwatering, but they're not going to feed the world. In light of this disconnect between agrarian fantasy and agricultural reality, what follows is a brief list of how we might, as politically engaged consumers, begin to approach the task of improving the global food system. SUPPORT THE ETHICAL USE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY. The quickest way to make an organic farmer apoplectic is to mention genetically modified crops. "Frankenfoods!" we tend to think. This is, however, a dangerous misconception. There's no doubt that some corporations have, through bullying tactics, given genetically modified seeds a bad name. Though there are many good reasons to attack abusive corporate practices, that does not mean we should dismiss the technology itself. Genetically modified technology must always be aggressively regulated, but it should also be encouraged to achieve its considerable potential. It's true that we're nowhere near such a goal. Today, genetically modified crops are used to further the interests of corn-soy-cotton monoculture. This is unfortunate, especially given that this technology could promote medium-scale diversified crop systems that enjoy higher yields on less land, a reduction in pesticide applications, healthier soil as a result of lowered tillage and access to drought-resistant crops suitable for subsistence production and commercial trade. As with most forms of technology, the question is not whether the technology should exist, but how it should be applied. SUPPORT THE JUDICIOUS USE OF CHEMICALS. Few public discussions are as misleading as those surrounding agricultural chemicals. Consumers will often say they want "chemical free" food, which is, of course, food that does not exist. All food contains chemicals - some are naturally occurring; others are synthetic. Many natural chemicals allowed by the National Organic Standards Board (methyl bromide, sodium nitrate, copper sulfate and nicotine) are more dangerous than synthetic ones. The chemicals that naturally occur in a cup of coffee, glass of wine or a spear of celery can contain more carcinogens than trace chemicals left on crops from pesticide spraying. In other words, it is overly simplistic to think in terms of chemicals or no chemicals. Instead, we should focus on what kinds of chemicals are used, in what quantities and how they are applied. This information should be publicly available, along with an Environmental Protection Agency report on every chemical, for every food item we purchase - whether at H-E-B or our local farmers market. Nitrogen fertilizer offers a case in point. The stuff is, without a doubt, bad for the environment. When used indiscriminately, as it too often is, nitrogen fertilizer leaches excess nitrogen into the soil and water, desiccating land, contributing to global warming and turning major bodies of water - including the Gulf of Mexico - into seasonal dead zones. As agricultural scientists explore the potential of nitrogen uptake efficiency, however, it is becoming increasingly possible for farmers to apply more efficient fertilizers that transfer substantially more nitrogen from the surrounding environment into the plant. Environmental waste suddenly becomes food. This kind of "nutrient budgeting," as it's called, respects the value of nitrogen fertilizers in expanding yields while also respecting the ecological damage they can cause. HOLD AGRIBUSINESS ACCOUNTABLE. Sad as it may seem, corporations are not going to undertake costly reductions in environmental waste out of concern for you, me or the common good. They'll do nothing without the economic incentives to justify their actions. Say what you will about this greed, but that's just the business of business in America. Thus, the surest and quickest way to inspire a judicious use of chemicals would be to make the environmental externalities caused by wasteful chemical usage - damages to air, soil, water and biodiversity - part of the routine cost of production. Socially and environmentally responsible agricultural habits will only arise when industrial agriculture can profit from preventing waste. For decades, industrial ecologists and environmental policymakers have been building blueprints to enact these changes. What awaits is political will - not to mention cleaner air, soil and water. There is, of course, an important flip side to this proposal. We must apply political pressure to end agricultural subsidies that reward agribusiness for excessive chemical applications to monocultural crops. The obvious case in point is corn. With corn producers paid handsomely by the federal government to maximize the production of their crop in order to feed it to livestock and ethanol plants, we've scaled up an already chemically bloated system to gargantuan proportions, thereby automatically increasing applications of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and nitrogen fertilizers. Pull the plug on this hideous form of corporate welfare, and perhaps replace it with a tax incentive to diversify a midsize industrial agriculture system, and - lo and behold - it'll be microgreens for the masses. EAT LESS MEAT. A lot less. I'm sorry about this one, but you must have seen it coming. Highlight any single aspect of our overindustrialized food system, probe it to its root cause, and what you will find every time is meat. Chicken, pork and farm-raised fish are all problematic, but - and I write this knowing that they're fighting words in Texas - cows stand out as an especially guilty culprit. The land, grain, water and chemicals used to nurse these notoriously inefficient meat carriers to slaughterhouse weight boggles the mind. One statistic (which I recently read in Stan Cox's book "Sick Planet"): It requires 68 times more water to produce a pound of beef than a pound of flour. We're often encouraged to buy local to support the environment. I would never discourage anyone from supporting the local food supply, but we must also remember that what we buy often has greater environmental implications than where it comes from. What to do? Grass-fed beef, if you can afford it, is better, but if the emerging natural beef industry expanded to the level of conventional beef, we'd be facing a major land crunch. Mowing down rain forests to eat more sustainable beef hardly seems like the right answer. Another option to consider, however, is freshwater aquaculture. Granted, an unregulated fish farm can be the aqueous equivalent of a feedlot. But, when properly developed with the right incentives, freshwater farms can be inspiring examples of "closed loop" sustainability, with fish eating agricultural waste and the fish waste used to fertilize plant crops. Tilapia, anyone? I've arrived at these contemporary proposals, sometimes reluctantly, after researching and writing about the 300-year arc of American agricultural development. I realize that these measures will not, in and of themselves, reform the global food system. But I also realize that they are viable starting points - starting points that recognize the harsh reality that we have, as responsible consumers, been given a compromised agricultural environment with which to work. To ignore the global industrial system that produces the vast majority of our food - that is, to pursue solutions that fail to work with what we have - is to ignore history. And that, as history shows, is only a recipe that calls for more chemicals. -- "Justice is what love looks like in public." ~ Dr. Cornel West _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
