My hackles were raised by Joanna Pearstein's criticism of organics in Wired's June 2008 issue. She states organics may be good for our bodies but they're not good for the planet. Does that mean we should eat food that's bad for our bodies? Would be good for the planet? I disagree with her information on lower than average yields per acre (of organically grown produce) and this creating a need to farm more land for the same amount of food.
There are many examples of the exact opposite of this statement and here is one.
The Thompsons in Iowa switched their farming methods from conventional high-intensity, monocrop methods, using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, to a diversified alternative way they call "regenerative agriculture". They are producing the same amount of food, it's costing them less because they aren't spending money on chemicals, and they are improving the quality and fertility of their soil. The organic content in their soil is twice that of their neighbors giving it the capacity to store more carbon. (Cuningham, Principles of Environmental Science, mhtml:file://D:\Additional Case Studies.mht).
Another would be what has happened in Cuba. Cuba was dependent on imported food to feed her people and fuel to run the equipment used to farm their monocrop of sugarcane. The fuel came from the Soviet Union. They sold sugarcane for premium prices to the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, Cuba's economy fell apart. In a very short period of time they needed to figure out how to feed their people. They met the challenge and are leading the world in sustainable agricultural practices including the use of oxen and mules.."who have replaced 500,000 tractors idled by lack of fuel." (Cuningham)
I'm not about to be swayed into thinking that my eating of organically grown food is bad for the planet. Eating local sustainably grown organic food is one answer to the question, what can we as individuals do to help stop global warming.
No comments:
Post a Comment