The Green Revolution
Over the past few weeks I have been researching the "organic movement" in the US, mainly as a way to find the truth behind the much lauded health and environmental benefits of organic farming and organic food. Some of it makes sense, while most of it flys in the face of a logical global perspective.
We live in a rich society. We have the luxury of choice. We can choose to purchase "organic" foods, which in this context are foods that do not have a production method involving: chemicals (pesticides, sewage level fertilizers, hormones, anti-biotics), genetic alteration, or preservatives. Within the context of food inside the US, I have to admit that if you can guaranteee the production methods of the food you purchase, you should choose the method with the least risk. For many consumers this involves purchasing organic food from Whole Foods. Can you trust them? Can you personally guarantee you're getting what you pay for? According to this boycott, you can't. My suggestion is if you are concerned with the food you take into your body then find a food co-op, farmer's market, direct to consumer farm, or grow the food yourself. Each one of these involves knowing the grower. The alternative is trusting for-profit corporations to tell the truth or obey the spirit of organic foods rather than find loopholes to verify certification. Organic certification is not a safe method to guarantee the origin of your food. There is something to be said about truly caring about your food.
I do have a specific problem with the organic movement. It firmly ignores the dietary needs of the third world. My suggestion is googling something called the Green Revolution. This will never alleviate the socioeconomic issues of the third world but it will make it possible for the world to eat. My other suggestion is looking up information on Norman Borlaug, whose genetic research and crop production methods have been estimated to have saved the lives of a BILLION people, not a million, but a BILLION. He recieved the Nobel Peace prize in 1970 for his work. There are arguments that the food production fails to resolve the disparity in wealth that allows people to starve in the first place, but without his research socioeconomic reform would be meaningless as many third world countries wouldn't even be able to feed those within their own borders. His research made India a food exporter rather than a food importer.
The EU can get snooty, the US organic movement can cry all they want, but at the end of the day you would have to sacrifice human lives if you wished to eliminate all Genetically Modified food from the market. There is little evidence that GM food is harmful, in and of itself, to the human body. From insect resistant corn, to dwarf wheat that doesn't collapse under its own weight, the biggest drawbacks to genetically modified food is the pesticides used in conjunction with pesticide resistant GM crops. The additional risk of species cross contamination being the other drawback, although this has little affect on humanities health and more to do with our tastebuds.
We live in a rich society. We have the luxury of choice. We can choose to purchase "organic" foods, which in this context are foods that do not have a production method involving: chemicals (pesticides, sewage level fertilizers, hormones, anti-biotics), genetic alteration, or preservatives. Within the context of food inside the US, I have to admit that if you can guaranteee the production methods of the food you purchase, you should choose the method with the least risk. For many consumers this involves purchasing organic food from Whole Foods. Can you trust them? Can you personally guarantee you're getting what you pay for? According to this boycott, you can't. My suggestion is if you are concerned with the food you take into your body then find a food co-op, farmer's market, direct to consumer farm, or grow the food yourself. Each one of these involves knowing the grower. The alternative is trusting for-profit corporations to tell the truth or obey the spirit of organic foods rather than find loopholes to verify certification. Organic certification is not a safe method to guarantee the origin of your food. There is something to be said about truly caring about your food.
I do have a specific problem with the organic movement. It firmly ignores the dietary needs of the third world. My suggestion is googling something called the Green Revolution. This will never alleviate the socioeconomic issues of the third world but it will make it possible for the world to eat. My other suggestion is looking up information on Norman Borlaug, whose genetic research and crop production methods have been estimated to have saved the lives of a BILLION people, not a million, but a BILLION. He recieved the Nobel Peace prize in 1970 for his work. There are arguments that the food production fails to resolve the disparity in wealth that allows people to starve in the first place, but without his research socioeconomic reform would be meaningless as many third world countries wouldn't even be able to feed those within their own borders. His research made India a food exporter rather than a food importer.
The EU can get snooty, the US organic movement can cry all they want, but at the end of the day you would have to sacrifice human lives if you wished to eliminate all Genetically Modified food from the market. There is little evidence that GM food is harmful, in and of itself, to the human body. From insect resistant corn, to dwarf wheat that doesn't collapse under its own weight, the biggest drawbacks to genetically modified food is the pesticides used in conjunction with pesticide resistant GM crops. The additional risk of species cross contamination being the other drawback, although this has little affect on humanities health and more to do with our tastebuds.
Mmm...healthy food. Mmmm. I agree with you, that the best place to get "real" food is at a farmer's market or to grow it yourself. We shopped at Davenport's market all summer and grew our own lettuce and tomatoes, and there is really something to be said for food that you have to wash because it is DIRTY. It's a greater connection to where food comes from. As for the rest of the new "organic food" trend in supermarkets everywhere, I just generally try to buy food with the least amount of preservatives and not worry about how it's labeled. When Kraft Foods is selling "organic" you know that the original intent of the word is being distorted!!
ReplyDeleteAs for the Green Revolution, I read the Wikipedia article you linked, and I have to say, I'm not impressed. When I was about halfway through, I said to myself, but this goes directly against what I just read on the BBC a couple weeks ago about Indian farmers losing their farms. Good for the Green Revolution for increasing yields, but re-read what that article says under "socio-economic impacts" and you'll see some of the drawbacks that sprang immediately to my mind when I read it. Also the whole thing about how it increases pesticide use to increase yields- that worries me. Pesticides are yucky and dangerous and should be avoided or neutralized wherever possible. Nowadays I know they're making safer, biodegradable pesticides, and I hope that's what they're using in today's Green Revolution. So I'm afraid I'm not totally on the Green Revolution bandwagon with you.
Cheers!
Regarding the "green revolution", the problem in India seems to reflect the progression of the workers towards a global market rather than subsistence alone. I don't necessarily think that corporate consolidation can be laid at the feet of making survival possible were the haves to be in a little more sharing mood with the have-nots.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, starvation could be solely the result of socioeconomic issues especially in the face of an industrialized nation. India is moving towards cash crops and profits rather than feeding the hungry and the poor.
Here's a link to the article you mentioned BBC news article.
My contention is not that heavy pesticide usage is good for the world, but that responsibly genetically modified food is not harmful. With a specific species of corn not even needing pesticides due to genetic modification and wheat made to grow in harsher climates, I can't see the drawback to these specific manipulations we've made of ole' mother nature. Would I obliterate all genetic modification of plants if given the choice? Never. That is the question I asked myself that spurred the post.
Had to make another comment...
ReplyDeleteThe counterpoint to the efficacy of the green revolution to sustaining human life is the consolidation of power and wealth due to the effective methodologies of the "green revolution" related crop production systems. Then the final question is, "Would more people be starving had the shifts in crop production never occurred?" My personal belief is yes.
We can either start passing out condoms to third world countries, or start figuring out ways to grow more food. (Man, that sounded just like a loudmouth radio talk show host heh)
Tell Spencer Hi :)