Up For Debate: Sustainable Food
May 7, 2010 by Kathy McManus
If you think you’re doing the right thing by making politically correct food choices, think again, says a provocative article posted at NPR.org from Foreign Policy magazine.
“Attention Whole Foods shoppers,” writes political science professor Robert Paarlberg, “Stop obsessing about arugula. Your ‘sustainable’ mantra—organic, local, and slow—is no recipe for saving the world’s hungry millions.”
Rural Africa has the same organic, local, and slow system, Paarlberg says, “and it doesn’t work.” He argues that food in much of Africa is “de facto organic” since few farmers use synthetic chemical fertilizer; it’s “local” due to high transportation costs; and it’s “painfully slow” in preparation. “The result is nothing to celebrate,” the professor says, creating a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.
We’re “full of good intentions,” Paarlberg says. “We want to save the planet. Help local farmers. Fight climate change—and childhood obesity.” But the idea that changing our shopping and eating habits will help others has been “wildly oversold to Western consumers,” he says. Hence, his tough love/tough luck message: “If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we’ve developed in the West.”
Do you think Paarlberg has a point?
Find More ///
- in Green Living, Environment
- in Blog
- about food, farming, agriculture, environmentalism
Related ///
Trash at Sea
This avid sailor and educator is recruiting help to clean up a “garbage patch” of plastic and other trash in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Europe Deems 2014 the Year Against Food Waste
Should we take waste stats more seriously?
Dnt txt & drv
It’s a deadly activity teens engage in daily. Check out these short films on the dangers of texting and driving.
A Champion for Homeless Pets
The founder of The Best Friends Animal Society explains the origins of the “no kill movement” and his continued efforts to help homeless animals.
Is Yoga Bad for You?
A new debate has taken hold over yoga’s health benefits, or lack thereof.
57 Comments
What do you think? Leave a comment
May 19, 2010 by Debbie Cora
You must be either from the meat, dairy, or drug industry. Here's the thing: God made our plants and foods perfect for our body needs. ANY change to it goes against what our nutrient requirements are. PERIOD! Add chemicals, process the food to death that HAD nutrients in it, then put back inferior chemical supplements makes absolutely NO sense. Inject our meat animals with antibiotics, hormones, and whatever else they add to fatten them up too fast is frankly killing our people and causing us to require drugs to stop pain and symptoms. And radiating our perfect foods is destroying enzymes we REQUIRE! Gee, let's radiate our food so 100 people won't get salmonella, yet millions will have their lives shortened and become ill and need drugs! by having imperfect foods over time. HHMMMMM....sounds like someone's plan??? And, yeah, let's go ahead and modify the seeds and change what WAS perfect, so no one will ever be able to have great health, now THAT'S a great idea! Just look at the studies done in "THE CHINA STUDY" that clearly show that meat based diet is causing MAJOR illness and plant based diets heal our bodies. Get rid of all the cattle industry and the dead land that we have created where nothing will ever grow again will not spread more, and replace it with whole green foods and have enough to feed the entire world! And did you know that milk drinkers have HIGHER osteoporosis occurrence than non milk drinkers???Milk and meats cause more damage and disease than those industries will ever allow you to know! YES! By all means organic is KEY to health and healing. We are NOT fools! Educate yourself!
Reply
July 11, 2010 by Zee
And when God created the world and provided everything we needed the population was considerably smaller. While I do believe in organic and supporting our local farmers, what the article is saying is that our "support local farmers" isn't working overseas to feed the millions that are starving. They can't feed their population because their crops die, they don't have the land, or the land is inferior. Supporting their farmers isn't the issue. It's the inability to produce enough, even with the untampered land. What works for one person won't work for everyone.
I do agree that some of those processes (the addition of so many pesticides, the removal and then adding back in nutrients) are not healthy and are wrong. I prefer to eat fresh veggies instead of taking a multivitamin and I think organic carrots taste better, so I'm not saying that it isn't healthy or that it's wrong to do. Unfortunately, science has made it possible for you to choose to do organic and to buy from farmers. Without fertilizers, we may have very well have starved to death. If we want to help overseas, maybe we could reduce our food waste and our overconsumption and think about sending over agricultural aid. Let's face it, we can't even afford to feed our own country.
Reply
September 16, 2011 by browen
Maybe we should be teaching them birth control.
August 15, 2010 by jack
after all the studies,organic foods just the beautiful name for the produce company to make money from you.don't be fool by them.
Reply
September 13, 2011 by Marc K
Jack you're clueless and projecting. Stop creating boogey-men and taste the food.
September 6, 2011 by Chris
I believe he's referring to the effects on the environment and the ability to spread local, organic farming to a broad base (i.e. the entire American public). If every American ate local, organic farming, the effects on the environment would be devastating. Commercialized farming, for all of its chemical downfalls, is considerably better for the environment (CO2 release) and ultimately more sustainable than local, organic farming would or could ever be. He was not trying to debate the health effects from eating organic food. I believe he was trying to make the point that local, organic farming doesn't work very well on a large scale level.
Reply
September 11, 2011 by Jenn
Actually, it's commerical agriculture that is responsible for most of the air, water and soil pollution that is happening now. It used to be that our meat and produce was grown locally. Now it's trucked or flown hundreds of miles each and every day. Major corporations have completely destroyed small, independant farms. Our meat and produce is infused with chemicals because commercial agriculture and monoculture crops have completely thrown off the balance of nature. To grow a single pound of beef takes hundreds of gallons of water, not only for the animals to drink but water is also used by the thousands of gallons per day to clean the overcrowded structures in whch these animals are housed. People are dying from living near major hog factory farms because of having to breathe in polluted air and drink from polluted wells. We're also having to take stronger, more expensive antibiotics because the meat we eat has been treated with antibiotics to which harmful bacteria (ie staph), is now resistant. More illness also means higher healthcare costs. Cheaper to buy commercial? Yeah. Right.
September 7, 2011 by Consider this
Get rid of Meat? God designed perfect plants ect. You seem to overlook on glaring fact. GOD put a pair of canine incisors in my mouth for ripping and tearing meat! GOD also gave man the ability to make clothes and change his environment. Should we wander the earth naked without shelter? If we can grow food more efficiently to feed more people by using science we should. If you prefer to eat closer to the land by all means do so, but do not try to force others into your dogma.
Reply
September 9, 2011 by Pragmatic
Wow, first post and we get the invisible-man-in-the-sky explanation! The ignorant and weak-minded are getting quicker!
So God created the food just the way it should be... so God intends to starve millions of children? Why didn't He stop these heathens that invented agricultural technology, if He supposedly had it just right? I thought He was "all-loving" - how loving is it to starve innocent babies? I guess he's culling the herd, like overly populated deer? Not my definition of "Loving" on any level.
This is just another excuse to be no part of the solution - my Invisible Man has it all figured out, I will do nothing!
Keep your religious zealotry to yourself and your coven, and maybe actually DO something to make the world a better place. There are a lot of people sick of hearing your fairy tales, and in human history religion (any and all of them) has served mostly as an excuse to kill other people.
Emotional crutch for the weak-minded.....
Reply
May 19, 2010 by Tracy Daniels
I have a stupid question. How can they sell organic honey? How do they know exactly were the bees collect the the pollin. Am I stupid or is it bull. It costs twice as much and I just don't get it. Could someone explain it to me.. Thanks.
Reply
June 7, 2010 by jrt
It's "organic" honey only because the beekeepers don't feed antibiotics to the bees (yes, even bees get sick), or gas for varroa (sp?)-- they're a type of mite that affects hives.
Reply
May 25, 2010 by Ashton Wingate
I agree with Debbie. Perhaps Prof. Paarlberg should read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. I wonder if this man has even been to the "capitalized agricultural systems" he mentions. Cows for example, were never meant to eat corn instead of grass. Although its a fast grower, it weakens the cattle's immune system. Those cattle don't live, they survive. Vetrinarians are responsible for cattle living long enough to be made into meat. With out the vet's antibiotics all of the cattle on the feedlot (not farm) would die. A visit to Polyface farms in Virginia might show Prof. Paarlberg how farming should be. What good is fighting world hunger when you aren't providing quality food to begin with? We might as well be the cattle that are "surviving" instead of living.
Reply
November 16, 2010 by Jarrett
I agree polyface farm is a great model of a farm that is sustainable. some how people have survived for centuries with out chemical fertilizers.
Reply
June 1, 2010 by Bartleby
While I agree that corn is not a great food in the quantities we eat it, I think it's a bad idea to reject scientific farming altogether. Cattle raised in Australia and South America are grass fed. I believe cattle raised in Montana are grass fed as well. They should be just fine to eat. Higher crop yields from the use of fertilizers are fine as well.
Irradiation is not reflective of scientific farming techniques but prepared foods. If you object to prepared foods, that's fine - don't eat them. *shrug*
For the people saying that meat kills, I beg to differ. When someone with an agendum that wishes to be intellectually dishonest to forward said agendum, of course the results of their study will reflect that it is meat that is bad for you. Rather, it is our sedentary lifestyle, our gross consumption of high fructose corn syrup, and our _overeating_ of fatty meats that are killing us.
We are omnivores through biology. We are predators. We have eyes in the front of our heads and we have sharp teeth to tear flesh. Those are hallmarks of predatory animals.
You don't like meat? Great. Just don't act like it's inherently bad for us because you have a moral or otherwise personal objection to it. That reflects on your personal choices and not the objective reality.
-Bartleby
Reply
July 8, 2010 by hawk
Totally Agree! I love a good grass feed rib eye. But I also realize that exercise, fruit and veggies are essential as well. Organic is better knowing that it hasn't been tainted with chems. Balance is the key to life.
Reply
September 3, 2011 by Hahaha
You've got an agendum. Funny.
Reply
September 22, 2011 by Mfrankl
I agree 100% well said!
Reply
June 1, 2010 by Bartleby
Tracy: They actually can determine from whence the pollen came if they do so within enclosed greenhouses or the like.
An interesting note: though the meaning of 'organic' is changing over time, its actual meaning is that the substance in question contains carbon. That's right - according to the strict definition of organic, 'Coca-Cola' is organic and pure water is not.
-Bartleby
Reply
June 5, 2010 by james
organic honey can also come from the island of Niue in the south pacific where no chemical agriculture is practiced - but it's a long way to go for some honey! jbc
Reply
June 7, 2010 by liz
My husband and I went organic on Earthday this year. I just have to say that all of my health problems have mostly disappeared. Last year I had to get a blood transfusion due to low iron level. I have struggled to keep my iron level up since then. Well, since changing over my diet to organic foods I have normal iron levels and have more energy than the last several years. I also have lost 25 lbs.
Reply
July 13, 2010 by irene
I have also found that it is not as hard or as expensive as it is made to be to eat organic. i have also bcome an advocate of using all home products organic. It is really resonable.My flowers look better and my garden produces more.
Reply
June 7, 2010 by jrt
I must be a bad person. I am not concerned with feeding the masses, but my own family-- and giving my son a world he can actually live in. Feeding the hungry is a noble cause/idea, but the whole notion that people should be encouraged to marginalize women and promote huge families that they can't support is preposterous.
Reply
September 15, 2010 by organic granny
Noble ideas of feeding the overpopulated countries in the world are, well, noble. But the are very impractical. Nature has checks and balances, and sad but true...overpopulation is corrected by disease and famine.
The problem now is that GMO foods/seeds have been released into the world, and the genomes of God's flora have been forever changed. GMO cross pollination is how humans will be removed from the earth, by slowly starving ourselves on pretty foods with no nutritional value.
Reply
September 6, 2011 by Chris
Feeding the overpopulated countries of the world is noble, yes...but it is also humane. Claiming that GM foods will be the death of humans is ridiculous and shows you know very little about the science behind them.
September 6, 2011 by Chris
Your sentiment for your family is understandable but the points you make about worldwide hunger and family size is uneducated. The reason for the large family size in the poorer areas of our world is because of the lack of education in those areas and the need to have a large family in hopes that 1 out of your 6,7, 8 children make it to adulthood. The richer parts of the world overindulge in how they eat and politically neglect the poorer areas of the world. Blaming the poor for their situation is one of the most heartless statements I can imagine coming from a person.
Reply
June 16, 2010 by Faatimah
The choice to buy organic is not solely with the intention of 'feeding the world.' In fact, I think that is farther from the mind of organic shoppers than you assert. People buy organic to support farmers, ensure that the people growing their product get a fair share of the profit. And for selfish reasons mostly: to ensure that their family is eating food with the highest nutritional value. Food in mass production does not feed the world. We've had that for years and the poor are still poor. Good, humanitarian policies regarding food growth and distribution feed the world. My or someone else's choice to eat organic is not hurting anyone.
Reply
July 8, 2010 by Amanda Merck
Well said. Eating local whole foods is not about feeding the masses. Agriculture has been industrialized for decades and not put a dent in world hunger. Our over-processed food products are not going to help the malnourished in Africa. It may give them more calories-that their body won't know what to do with-but they will still be malnourished.
Reply
August 23, 2010 by Steve
"Industrial" agriculture has not put a dent in world hunger? How much hunger do you think there would be without it? Uncontrolled population growth guarantees more food is needed, and that requires "industrial" agriculture.
June 23, 2010 by Jane
No point to me. He sounds like he doesn't know much about all the chemicals, pesticides, and hormones put in food nowadays. I'm in my 50's and feel a lot healthier eating organically . It's more expensive to get, but just knowing that it isn't putting poisons in my body is worth it.
Reply
June 25, 2010 by Joe Orlando
The criteria for organic honey is not only how the beekeeper treats the bees for a variety of pathogens and pests. Organic honey is rare because you have to find at least 36 square miles of land which has not been sprayed with insecticides or herbicides for ten years or more. The reason for the 36 square miles is that bees will travel as far a three miles (in all directions) from the hive to retrieve the nectar from which they make the honey. Most USDA certified organic honey now comes from the most remote parts of Brazil and Africa where synthetic chemicals are, for the most part, too expensive to use!
Reply
July 1, 2010 by Jason
There is a company that just started delivering Organic and Local Produce to Louisville...to your front door. Very little waste, very green company. No obligations or memberships.... www.naturesgardendelivered.com
get a coupon only today (6/1) for 50 percent discount for the first box
www.groupon.com/louisville
Reply
July 23, 2010 by Sarah Smile
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Also this temple is not yours, It is a gift from God! So treat it with the upmost respect! Keep the junk out of your trunk! If you cherish it,you will reap the benefits. Try it, you"re going to like it! You're not a failure because you fail, you failed because you quit! So don't give up, and don't give in, and don't you quit doing the right thing for your temple. Be still, and listen and listen to your heart. Because yourbody knows exactly what it needs. God designed it that way. But we keep on forceing it to take what it don't want! EX. A baby forced to drink cows milk, or any other pasturized milk will throw it up! But the mother or father will continue to forced it even though they keep vomiting it up! Milk is nothing more thanmucus, pus, and boogies! Don't you feel the mucus in your throat! I won't go into the complications it causes, because you can read that there too! No animal will drink our mother's milk! So why should we drink theirs!!
Reply
August 31, 2011 by Angela
Their puking isn't limited to cow's milk; babies throw up breast milk as well. That's not any evidence against milk.
Reply
September 3, 2011 by rob
I would not expect the same model to work in famine stricken Africa that works here, so I would not expect them to make the choice of not eating GMO food or trying to eat organically. Haven't you heard of the hierarchy of needs? If you don't have food in your stomach you will not turn your nose up even at the most vile processed foods. Poor people in the US also do not have the luxury of eating well, and that is why ironically the poor suffer the most from obesity. Did you know that there is already more than enough food in the world to feed every single person? Did you ever think that Ethanol is tying food prices to fuel and raising commodity prices for everyone? The argument in this article is just weak. it implies the same results would occur in a post-industrialized society with fertile soil and ample resources that an over-populated famine stricken nation experience. The real problem is with the distribution of food and resources and not with the amount of food in the world.
Your alternative is just to eat as many chemicals as we can to make sure we don't damage the model? Boo.
1 2 3 »
Tell us what you think.
Let the world know what you think, but please do so responsibly. Comments are moderated and we will not post personal attacks, obscene language or inappropriate material, comments with links, or comments from people under the age of 18. If you have a question, check out our Comment Submission Guidelines.