Part Two:
by Pat Tigges
The real danger in our food supply is not from minute levels of carcinogens, either natural or synthetic. It is from natural toxins that will grow rampantly in organic crops unless transportation and storage times are short. Our country has become accustom to having fresh veggies all year, not just when they are locally in season.
Well, even if organic is not safe, it must be kinder to the environment. Wrong! A recent study done by UC Berkeley compared a natural rotenone-pyrethrin mixture to a synthetic, imidan. Up to seven applications of the natural mixture were required to obtain the same level of protection provided by two of imidan. It seems unlikely that seven application of rotenone, which is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life, is kinder to the environment than two of imidan.
Organic farmers use very broad spectrum killers such as arsenic and strychnine (natural Vitamin D) to cont-rol insects. Pyrethrum, a strong natural pesticide, found in flowers, is ground up and dusted on plants. It kills beneficial insects as well as harmful ones.
Why are most people not aware of these things? Several reasons but the UC Berkeley study suggest three. First, organic farmers don’t want to dispel the myth that their crops are pesticide free. They would only stand to lose business. Two, manufacturers really don’t care. Natural pesticide sold and synthetic pesticide sold are both “pesticide sold”. And finally, conventional farmers are afraid to draw any more attention to pesticide use of any kind!
Now, the worst problem we would face with total organic farming. It is extremely hazardous to wildlife. High-yield agriculture is an environmental miracle.
World population has more than doubled in the past 30 years, from 2 bil-lion to nearly 5.5 billion today. Growth will not stabilize for another 50 years and by then (2050) we’re expecting world population to double again. Am-azingly agriculture had kept pace, incre-asing food production 230% since 1940.
And if that feat isn’t impressive enough, we have done it on the same amount of crop land. In 1950 we were using 5.8 million square miles to feed the world. Today, worldwide, that figure is the same (in the U.S. cropland had declined). If, however, land use had gone up with population we would now be farming nearly triple the land we do today.
Just where would we have found all this additional land. In our backyards? Much of it would have come from fragile or marginal land or from that now set aside for wildlife. And what about the next fifty years? Just how much land and water can 11 billion people spare for wildlife?
Naturalists agree that the real threat to wildlife is habitat loss. The key to saving wildlife is minimizing the acres used for crop production. High-yield agriculture, aided by more intensive research toward this end, just might spare a little.
As for the long term, our modern high-yield agriculture is more sustainable than ever before in history. Erosion has been cut from 60 to 98% in some areas. No-till farming, only possible with chemical weed control, is saving precious top soil to the tune of millions of tons annually. Aided by satellites and radar, farmers are beginning to use no-leach application by varying rates from yard to yard rather than field to field. Biotechnology is on the verge of great things including reducing inputs with improved varieties.
Should we squander our precious few research dollars chasing a pipe dream? I think not. Better we spend them increasing production on the land we are now using.
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 AgAir Update, P.O. Box 850, Perry, GA 31069 - an international agricultural aviation publication.
Return to Spreading the Facts