Want talking points to explain why sustainable ag is a must? Here you go
If you’re reading this, chances are that you already know that sustainable agriculture is a positive, necessary—nay, indispensable—part of our global future. But if, like me, you sometimes have a hard time articulating why, have a look at the report written by Johns Hopkins researchers Leo Horrigan, Robert Lawrence and Polly Walker, published by the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (pdf). Six years may have passed since it was published, but it’s lost none of its potency, and it may help give you some ammo when you’re arguing around the dinner table—I’ve sent it to family left and right. It’s a great basic text on the need for and tenets of sustainable agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture has been discussed in so many ways, and has so many different meanings depending on who’s talking about it, that I found the following definition refreshingly simple:
Sustainable agriculture…is a change in mindset whereby agriculture acknowledges its dependence on a finite natural resource base—including the finite quality of fossil fuel energy that is now a critical component of conventional farming systems. It also recognizes that farm management problems (weeds, insects, etc.) cannot be dealt with in isolation but must be seen as part of a whole ecosystem whose balance must be maintained.
The main thrust of the article is that beef production is the least sustainable way to make food (the article cites its inefficient energy conversion rate, use of growth-promoting antibiotics, high rate of pathogen association, and association to chronic degenerative diseases). Apparently, feedlot beef production requires 35 kcal of fossil energy to make 1 kcal of food energy. Beef production also requires 100 times more water than the production of equivalent protein energy from grains.
But (probably because I’m not ready to become a vegetarian) I found more absorbing the parts of the article that include facts on insecticide use (which in the US increased 10-fold between 1945 and 1989) and the over-use of nitrogen released onto farmland as fertilizer—according to estimates, crops actually utilize only one-third to one-half the chemicals poured over them, leaving the rest to run into waterways. Even more appalling waste statistics apply to pesticides, only 0.1% of which, apparently, reach the target pests. Ironically, pests often recover faster from pesticides than do their natural predators, and the pesticides also drift into and contaminate air and water.
The researchers conclude that “Hunger and food insecurity are currently problems not of resource scarcity but of insufficient political will or moral imperative to change the way food is allocated.” It’s a hopeful note to end on—if we can manage to effect change, that is.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.plentymag.com/blog-mt1/mt-tb.cgi/4311
Comments
Hi Nathalie! Thanks for citing that paper from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. I work at the Center for a Livable Future, where the authors do their research, and I'm currently volunteering on a project to promote a less meat-heavy diet. Check out http://www.meatlessmonday.org There's great info and recipes, both for folks trying out a new diet or people completely eliminating meat. It's a very accessible website, the perfect place to send folks who want to know more or make a change, but aren't quite sure how to do it.
Posted by:Anna E |April 21, 2008 12:55 PM