6 Reasons Organics Can Feed the World

by guest blogger Coach Mark Smallwood, Executive Director of the Rodale Institute.

Buying organic is a powerful change-making action, but it's also a relatively easy one. You put the organic food in your cart, hand over the cash, and head home with a bag full of food you can feel good about. Defending your choice to support organic can sometimes be a little trickier. Early on, the trend was to attack the quality of organically grown food--bug-eaten lettuce and scabby apples. In just 20 years, the criticism has become the polar opposite, that organic food is gourmet and only for the rich.

The latest "feed the world" scare tactic has been a really good way for Big Ag folks to shut down arguments for any agricultural path other than the one they promote. And we're now seeing it repeated verbatim as a fact over the dining room table, across the kitchen counter, and in the grocery store aisles.

Here are a couple of good sound bites to throw back the next time friends, family members, or even strangers tell you we need super-chemicals and GMOs to feed the world:

1. Chemical farming isn't "feeding the world" now. Despite more than 70 years of chemical- and petroleum-reliant farming practices, about 1 billion people are malnourished or starving in today's world.
   
   


2. It takes three calories of energy to create one calorie of edible food with conventional farming.These facts from a report from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health don't even include the energy used in transportation or processing. Our current system relies on practices that actually diminish the resource base that is needed to sustain it.
   
   


3. Biotech crops falter and fail without expensive herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation. While enormously productive in ideal conditions, biotech crops gobble up incredible amounts of resources to produce that yield.
   
   


4. Organic methods can produce harvests 180 percent larger than chemical farming in communities that struggle to feed themselves. Although global population is on the rise, population in the developed world is actually on the downturn. Most of the growth is in the developing world, where organics have been shown to have the most beneficial effects.
   
   


5. We could double food production in just 10 years using organic practices and other agroecological farming methods, according to a report from the United Nations. Agroecological practices, such as organic farming, attempt to mimic natural processes and rely on the biology of the soil and environment rather than synthetic sprays and other inputs.
   
   


6. Organic farming creates more of the resources on which our food supply relies, while conventional farming destroys them. Conventional farming leeches nutrients from the soil, puts a strain on our water supplies, and relies heavily on fossil fuels to make it work; organic farming builds better, more self-sufficient land, creates cleaner water, recycles nutrients, and leaves us with a cleaner atmosphere.

 

In our 30-year research trial at Rodale Institute we found that for corn and soybeans, organic yields matched conventional yields, organic outperformed conventional in years of drought, and organic farming systems built rather than depleted soil organic matter, used 45% less energy, and were more efficient. Organic fields were more profitable than conventional, and while conventional growers battle herbicide-resistant superweeds with bigger, badder chemicals, the organic crops held their own against weeds, producing just as much food as the conventional fields without the assistance of herbicide.

Even in the face of a rising global population, organic techniques provide a more secure, more stable, and more sustainable food system. A food-production system based on organic principles is the only hope the world has, according to a global study produced by the United Nations World Food and Agriculture Organization. We like to say, "Organic has the strength to not only feed the world, but feed the world well."

 

Coach Mark Smallwood has been dedicated to environmental sustainability, efficiency and conservation for decades. Since joining Rodale Institute in December 2010, he has brought heritage livestock back to Rodale Institute's 333-acre farm, expanded and enhanced Rodale Institute's research efforts, as well as launched "Your 2 Cents," a national campaign to support and promote new organic farmers. In recognition for his sustainability efforts, Coach was chosen as a messenger for Al Gore's Climate Project presenting to over 15,000 people on the effects of Global Warming. Last, but certainly not least, as a long-time organic farmer and biodynamic gardener, Coach has raised chickens, goats, sheep, pigs, and driven a team of oxen.

 

For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com

 

 

 

Follow Maria Rodale on Twitter: www.twitter.com/farmkitchenblog

Comments

[Beocon]

11:49 PM on 04/04/2012

If organic methods could increase crop production 180% over a broad spectrum of agriculture most farmers would already be growing organic. I've grown conventional and organic crops since 1986 and can say with authority that organics match conventional production in very few crops, on very few soils in very limited geographical areas. The productivity of organic systems depend largely on the local environment. In the best soil, with ideal weather conditions for the right crop selection, it can be a beautiful thing. The problem for organics is there are darn few "perfect" farming conditions and we need to produce a huge amount of food on a wide variety of soils in often less than ideal growing conditions. Because the modern farmer can do that, the Green Revolution is credited with ending starvation for billions of people. For every critic of modern farming techniques there are a million healthy people who simply wouldn't be here had it not been for the modern farmer.

[Casa Rosa Farms]

10:04 PM on 04/06/2012

I can only speak for my area, but I think it's less about the soils & more about the individual crop. In my neck of the woods, organic almonds & grapes generally do not match conventional yields because of the way they are grown for commercial purposes. Conventional guys usually employ a scorched earth orchard/vineyard management system for one main reason, no weeds/cover crops equals less competition for water & nutrients equals higher yields. However, there are many Organic vegetable farms here that easily out match conventional veggie yields. Two of the most common ways they're using for weed control is in fact very 'modern' & cutting edge -
soil solarization & plastic mulch machines, with the plastics going right back into the recycling stream when done. At least in CA, high Organic yields are dependent on many 'modern' irrigation technologies such as drip tape buried beneath each furrow by a tractor mounted implement at about 6 inches. A row crop like corn or beans can produce very high yields managed this way. Of course, it takes time & money to get weeds under control. That's the
catch 22, to pay for that, a grower needs the price premium and consumers willing to pay for it first.

[cladonia]

05:11 PM on 04/04/2012

It's so easy to take a small step toward sustainable agriculture...

http://botanywithoutborders.blogspot.com/search?q=worms

[purplegriffin]

10:28 AM on 04/04/2012

The issue with organics is not that they are not the ideal solution if well studied and applied but rather that they entail more labor and micromanagement making them thus unsuitable for capital intensive standard operations and, therefore, cannot provide large returns on the investment in conventional financial terms. The same applies to food distribution. Local (say 50 miles for fresh food or more for grains) leaves no room for large distribution and heavy investment. Large capital owners must find other investments -if available- than benefiting from population concentration in urban centers and their food supply from afar. The real reason behind the establishment attack on local and organic is financial selfishness; not production or efficiency but concentration of profits in a few hands, banks, biotech monsters, etc...

[aduss]

01:40 AM on 04/04/2012

The 1M undernourished people in the world are not all to blame on the "inability" for chemical/GMO based agriculture to support the 7 billion people in the world. The undernourishment of these people may be due more to government regulations on the importation policies of food and the climate more than the farming methods used. Some government policies restrict the importation of food. There is no doubt that world agriculture produces enough kilocalories to feed the entire world - the problem arises when there are insufficient methods of transportation and storage to match the demands in poverty-stricken areas of the world.

In response to Sherree KinseyAcree: Where is the evidence that organic foods are more nutritious? Who has determined that the higher level of phytochemicals and antioxidants found in organic foods are more better for us? There have been several studies that have determined that these secondary metabolites offer no beneficial health effects, and in some cases may even be detrimental to human health.

Lastly, it is important to remember that just because a food is labeled "organic" doesn't mean that it is better for the environment. Organic foods may use organic pesticides in order to curve unwanted growth of other plants. However, organic pesticides may need to be reapplied several times throughout the growing season because of chemical breakdown. A synthetic pesticide, on the other hand, only needs to be applied once per season in order to achieve the desired effects.

[aduss]

12:51 AM on 04/04/2012

It would be interesting to see the actual data from which the Rodale Institute surmised it's conclusions for the 30 year farm study.

As to Reason 1 above, just because there are 1M people under/malnourished doesn't mean that chemical farming is to blame. Most people in this category live in third world countries where government policies restrict the importation or donation of edible food for the hungry people. The climate in which they live may also have more to do with the conditions in which they live. No amount of organic or chemical-based farming will improve the climate.

An in response to the comment by Sherree KinseyAcree, where do you find evidence that organic food is more nutritious? Sure organic food may contain more phytochemicals and antioxidants, but are these secondary metabolites really beneficial for our bodies? Studies have found that supplementing humans with antioxidants offer no benefits, and in some cases may even be detrimental to overall health. It is a common notion that "organic foods" (fruits and vegetables mostly) are better for our health, but are they really?

[Laetitia Mailhes]

09:33 PM on 04/03/2012

Thank you for this much needed facts list. These are arguments that all of us should know indeed and be able to present whenever confronted with the "feed the world now!" position.
Another pertinent argument is pointing out a more valid question, these days, than your typical "Can organic feed the world?": "Can CONVENTIONAL agriculture keep feeding the world?" Not only is our current, global, conventional food system already failing to sustain 1 billion people, but industrial farming is directly responsible for topsoil erosion, water pollution, the gradual loss of cultivated biodiversity, the impoverishment of small farmers trapped in the GM seeds web, and a big chunk of greenhouse gas emissions... with dire consequences down the road.
By contrast, agroecology (I'm so grateful you're mentioning this little-known term, I believe it defines the new paradigm we need to create!) is all about preserving and even regenerating natural resources, reducing toxic emissions and capturing carbon. It's also about local communities being nourished by their local food system, and about farmers finding dignity and fair rewards in their skills and knowledge about food production and land stewardship.
Find more about agroecology here: http://www.nourish9billion.org/agroecology/
Sign the petition to shift US public policy in support of agroecology: http://www.nourish9billion.org/sign-the-petition/

[DrGrowItAll]

02:35 PM on 04/03/2012

This is a excellent article! I believe all of this to be true!
Gene Dr Grow It All

[Sherree KinseyAcree]

02:27 PM on 04/03/2012

Organics are more nutritious too.