Day 8- Fighting Farmers
- I can evaluate how sustainable an activity is for future generations.
- I can use the I=PAT model to determine the impact of human activity on the environment.
Fighting Farmers
Which is better, organic or conventional farming? Here are a few arguments from both sides. (Keep in mind, neither conventional nor organic production methods are uniform, so care must be taken when interpreting these arguments.)
Farmer 1
Numerous surveys have evaluated the environmental impact of various farming methods1. From these, a general consensus holds that: organic farms do not use synthetic pesticides which can harm local wildlife; organic farms sustain biodiversity due to practices such as crop rotation; per unit area, organic farms create less global warming CO2 per kilo of food, and produce less waste. The harmful effects of pesticide exposure are well documented. Even when they are used properly, they still end up in the bodies of farmers and food handlers. Organic techniques do not expose producers to dangerous organophosphate pesticides and other dangerous chemicals. A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 reported that the primary form of exposure to pesticides in children is via dietary intake. A more recent 2006 study showed that organophosphate levels dropped immediately when children were started on an organic diet (see studies section). According to the Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org) eating the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables exposes one to about 20 pesticides per day on average. Eating the 12 least contaminated foods exposes you to about 2 pesticides per day on average. Further, a study from 2005 in which umbilical cord blood was sampled showed that 21 commonly used pesticides can cross the placenta2.
Farmer 2
Organic is not necessarily the most eco-friendly farming system in the world. One of the largest arguments for purchasing organic food has been the simple fact that organic foods contain less pesticide and pesticide residues. One study published in 2002 claimed that organic foods have one third the pesticides of conventionally grown foods1. BUT, the federal government already has standards for allowable amounts of pesticide residues, and conventional foods are well under those levels. In addition, the long term effects of ingesting miniscule amounts of pesticides are unknown, and conclusions about such exposure are questionable at best.Many of the advantages of organic farming have been attributed to crop rotation which is NOT an exclusively organic farming technique. In addition, one of the newest techniques, no-till farming, is a decidedly conventional practice and it uses the least energy. In this technique, herbicides are used to clear land which means that all the energy used to till and manage land in the usual technique can be saved and used for other purposes. Perhaps the single best argument against organic food is that it is just too costly. On average, consumers pay 50% more for organic products and up to 100% more for organic meat and dairy products2. Also huge amount of organic produce is typically flown or shipped from the other side of the world. This contributes unnecessarily to climate change, via the CO2 emissions of the planes and boats that transport it. Although Europe and North America account for practically all organic food sales, they are responsible for only a third of total organic production, the rest being imported from Asia, Australia and Latin America.