Part One:
By Pat Tigges
There’s a dangerous myth floating around the ag community and some-body better quash is before public perception becomes reality. People think sustainable agriculture and or-ganic farming are synonymous. They are not! The terms are mutually ex-clusive and scientists, researchers and universities know this as well as I. If they don’t, they are either wearing blinders or “protecting their own rice bowl”. They have access to the same data as everyone else.
Sustainable means-capable of maintaining, and organic farming will not sustain the 250 million people in the U.S., let alone the hordes that will hit the ground as the living standard rises in the third world. Don’t believe that old cliché that says wealth can’t buy health. It can. That’s precisely why we live an average of 77 years while Ethiopians can expect to be dead by age 55. Developing countries will develop more than a better economy. They will develop a taste for more and better food. They will develop more children who live past one year of age ( the WHO estimates 40,000 children die daily of dietary inadequacies and health related effects). And ...if necessary, they will develop more fragile and marginal land to provide these needs.
The third world follows the lead taken by developed countries. If you believe that how we use our farming technology here has no bearing on what happens in the rest of the world, you obviously don’t have a television set.
Total organic farming could not even feed this country, at least not in the style to which we have become accustomed. Even if we could find enough natural fertilizer we would still have to break out fragile land. Overall, commercial organic farming produces, at best, half that of conventional methods. I realize most organic farmers are quoted as producing yields nearly equal to high technology methods but perhaps the reporters should talk to their neighbors. We might get better figures and also learn of the fallout damage.
Personally, I have nothing against organic farming (except the rampant spread of non-native noxious weeds). Those who wish to pay more for food should be able to find someone willing to take their money. However, I do object to people claiming organic food is better. Better for whom? Certainly not for one’s health; certainly not for the environment; and most certainly not for the wildlife it destroys.
Contrary to what most people believe, organic does not necessarily mean pesticide or chemical free nor can it claim to be residue-free. Under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of pesticides on their crops but they must be derived from natural sources. Well then, they must be safer. Right? Not so says science. Until recently, research concentrated on the “nasty man-made” chemicals and completely ignored anything made by Mother Nature. Well, the studies have finally been done and guess what? Mother Nature is not benign and neither are her pesticides. Natural pesticides contain the same percentage of carcinogens as synthetics, about 50%. Does that mean either farming method is dangerous to our food supply? Of course not. We are the healthiest nation on earth.
A presence does not constitute a hazard. Simple table salt is toxic when ingested in large amounts as are countless other chemicals, both natural and man-made. The danger lies in the dose, not in the presence.
Pat Tigges is administrator of the Pacific Northwest Aerial Application Education Foundation. She and her husband own an agricultural flying service in Coulee City, Washington. She holds a B.S. degree in Animal Husbandry, a M.S. degree in Animal Nutrition, has taught part-time in secondary and elementary schools and served as editor/publisher for a newspaper.
Reprint permission given by AgAirupdate, P.O. Box 850, Perry, GA 31069 - an international agricultural aviation publication.
Return to Spreading the Facts