After meeting with representatives of the Iowa environmental council (an NGO uniting multiple groups towards major environmental goals in the political atmosphere) today I saw a second point of view compared with the one I was given in the Paarlberg’s food politics book. The book explained that the runoff of agricultural lands was decreasing and that nitrogen is the main runoff issue. Policy analysts at the council, however, told us that phosphorus and soil runoff are still significant issues, and that nitrogen runoff is a serious and complex issue. Iowa is one of many states feeding into the Gulf of Mexico and has little to no significant regulation on fertilizer inputs for crop land. The only regulation that seemed to be definitive was that water bodies used for drinking water must be below a certain level for nitrates. I knew that agriculture runoff was a complicated issue, but I never realized just how complicated. The biggest initial issue is that its source is nearly untraceable–it’s non-point water pollution  If rain carries excess nitrogen from a farm to a river, how could tell the origin of the nitrogen? It’s incredibly difficult and expensive to do so. Not only that, but nobody likes regulations dictating what they are able to do especially people like farmers in many areas who have lived doing things their preferred ways for some time. Then there’s the fact that if you invest in a method that costs some amount (which some conservation efforts would) and others don’t, you put yourself at a financial disadvantage. Since all efforts are currently voluntary most people are left with this scenario. What people forget to factor in is how many others are affected by their decisions on their property in this issue, some of the benefits of improved methods (e.g.,. runoff of nutrients is not absorbed into the land). If there is runoff, you are pouring your money into a lake and washing it away. Using the proper fertilizer amounts will save the farmer money, and it will protect both local and downstream downstream environments.

Today we focused on the environmental aspect of farming, which is ironic considering that was my topic yesterday. Anyway, we started out going to Des Moines to meet with HN’s friend from high school, Jenny Terry, at the Iowa Environmental Council. She was definitely one of my favorite people we’ve met with so far. She was so funny and energetic.

The meeting with the Iowa Environmental Council focused on the impact that farming has on the water. I knew that the water was affected by farming, but I had no idea that it was such a big impact. The pictures that Susan Heathcote showed us were disgusting. I’m really glad the water in South Carolina is better because I play in the creek behind my house all the time. I feel like the pictures had more of an impact on me personally than the statistics did. I think that they should put more pictures like that in their public relations materials if they want more public support.

Paarlberg seemed to take a very different view, though. He highlighted the environmental impact of conventional farming, but was adamant that organic farms also had environmental consequences. He made it seem like organic was just as bad as conventional farming and the goods outweigh the bads of conventional farming. I think he made a good point, but I do think that there needs to be more regulation of conventional farming to reduce runoff and soil erosion. Today’s meeting really solidified that for me.

Everyone in the group is discussing some chunk of the organic/local vs conventional agriculture movement today. My topic is the yield difference between the two. To begin with, the yield in organic farms has been found to be roughly 25% lower than conventional. This comes as a meta study (research compiling many different articles) from Stanford University and has limitations, admitting that the lower yield varies by plant, by area, by practices, etc. Two papers that help explain this pretty well are: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html%3FWT.ec_id=NATURE-20120510 and http://holisticmanagement.org/blog/organic-v-conventional-the-yield-debate/ . Unfortunately, I should immediately say that anyone looking into this needs to look at both sides of the argument to really understand it as few people do so anymore. Secondly, readers should also remember that every writer, scientific or otherwise is biased in some way, including my own, derived from being a sustainability sciences major.

I tried to find individual case studies showing both conventional surpassing organic and organic surpassing conventional (or at least comparing) and was on able to find the latter. There is not a lack of data, it is a lack of good Google skill in myself. The articles I did find are http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=4431524 and http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ofa/pages/98/attachments/original/1391404186/Organic-Agriculture-Can-Feed-the-World-OFA.pdf?1391404186 . If nothing else these articles should all show that the argument between conventional and organic is more complex than one is better than the other, always and by a lot. There are arguments about the slow improvements in soil using organic (thus slowly improving yield), increasing investment in learning and educating best practices for organic as was done for conventional, and organics superior ability to withstand weather extremes which are expected to be more common through global climate change (if one agrees to that. All I’ll say on that topic is that the http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu makes it seem clear there are drastic increases in co2 since the industrial revolution). Even accounting for all of these conventional agriculture may produce more and a main argument to support it is that the high cost and slightly lower output of organic is not enough to supply the world’s growing population. The world is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 and either continue growing or level off there, and the US is a major food producer that trades and donates (USAID) large amounts of food to other countries. Can we produce the amounts needed to supply both ourselves and those we currently supply internationally (if recommend glancing over my blog yesterday to also see the animal aspect to this, especially important as the world develops and tries to move towards the high protein western diet)? Both conventional and organic can be large scale even though few think of organic as such, and both can use pesticides with organic being limited to natural ones (caffeine, bt, sulfur). People who say either is outright better are simplifying things too much, so please stop and think about what aspects each side brings to the table and at what costs. Personally I feel both are valuable and necessary moving forward and perhaps when both improve in their sciences one may become obsolete, but right now we need to ensure we can produce and people desire both cheap and high protein food which requires quantities that leave us relying on conventional. We also have slow growth in organic and sciences behind this movement with an easier low cost input system that can be adapted to poorer areas (i.e., developing countries) and which builds nutrients in the soil instead of stripping them. I believe organic or something similar will grow and needs to for long term agricultural sustainability and feasibility, but at this moment we can’t survive a sudden switch to all organic and shouldn’t try to take that course. I want organic or an idealistic organic to be the solution, but that will have to be a slow move if a complete shift is ever be possible.

Coming from a home that placed an emphasis on the importance of organic products and being someone who is highly skeptical of industrialized agriculture, the question of the impact of  organic foods is one I know I need to research. This question is especially relevant in light of the growing popularity of these movements. I find the philosophical reasons alone behind eating organic to be appealing, and I always tend to favor the natural over the synthetic. But I also acknowledge that it is important to weigh the real effects that an organic food system would have on the world. The practical goals of the organic movement are to avoid chemicals involved in conventional farming (I know this was the case in my home) as well as to protect the environment. But Paarlberg makes it seem that it is uncertain whether organic food production fulfills these standards more than conventional farming.

Thinking practically it would seem that the best method of agriculture would exist in a balance with the environment, not cause any adverse health effects, and most importantly be sustainable in the long-term. These goals are all inter-related as no form of agriculture can be sustainable in the long-term without first meeting the first two standards. Paarlberg notes how organic farming is usually far more environmentally sustainable, as long as the farmers know what they are doing, but argues that the optimal method combines both conventional and organic practices. The trouble here comes with the need to feed 7-9 billion people while trying to responsibly use the least land possible. It is very clear that to grow enough grains to feed enough livestock to feed the world would already take a huge amount of land, an amount which is only greatly increased by organic farming methods. Paarlberg acknowledges that this option is environmentally and economically impossible. I personally dislike conventional agriculture but also do not find organic farming sustainable in the long-term for everyone. This issue is one of the reasons why I abstain from eating any animal products as I consider it an irresponsible use of resources.

May 21:

When we go to the grocery store, we see normal, conventional, milk on the shelf, and organic milk next to it whose price is significantly higher, but why? According to Paarlburg, the price of organic milk can be up to 128% higher than the conventional. When picking up that organic milk, and paying over double for it, wouldn’t you think it was better for you? That is the current question under investigation. If organic prices are so much higher, one would think it is because it is so much better for you, but studies are showing there is not much of a difference between conventionally produced and organic milk. Paarlburg says, “strictly on nutritional grounds, health professionals from outside the organic community have found little or no advantage from organic foods” (171). The Mayo clinic backs up this argument by claiming, “No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food” (171). The Mayo clinic also states in its book, The Mayo Clinic Diet, that research is ongoing, but they have found the two different forms of food to be comparable in nutritional content. The Harvard Health Blog did studies as well and agrees there is not much of a health benefit given that,”researchers discovered very little difference in nutritional content, aside from slightly higher phosphorous levels in many organic foods, and a higher omega-3 fatty acid content in organic milk and chicken”. If the nutrition doesn’t seem to be the key to spending the extra money for organic, it must be the other factors that weigh into the need to buy them such as environmental or the decreased use of pesticides. However, an Oxford study found that organic milk, cereals, and pork production tend to generate more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of output than the conventional style of farming. It is true that they use less pesticides, which pose a very small health risk anyways, but that is one factor drawing people towards organic. We need to be aware though that organic foods do carry risks, something we learned about today. Paarlburg mentions several episodes of people dying after eating organic foods that contained things such as E. coli and salmonella. There are pros and cons to organic as well as conventional, but from a strictly nutritional view point, there is little to no difference in the two; so paying double the price would not benefit the customer looking to strictly eat a more nutritious diet.

One issue that goes unnoticed to many is providing better access to fresh produce for the poor.  The majority of those classified as poor depend on benefits from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as “food stamps,” to purchase food.  The most recent Farm Bill included some major benefits for locally-oriented and organic farms, allowing greater benefits from subsidies and crop insurance for the appropriate farmers, while also including cuts to major commodities.  However, many problems come with accessing this fresher, local food, whether it is because the immediate geographic area is labeled as a “food desert” (areas that lack affordable, nutritional food) or purchasing from farmers markets is near to impossible due to the lack of electronic payment methods.  The latter problem is because, in 2004, the federal government changed the form of food stamps from paper coupons to debit cards that can only be read at electronic benefit transfer terminals, but farmers market vendors typically only take checks or cash payments.  Installing EBT systems required thousands of dollars in up front costs and a monthly fee.  Currently, a little over 24% of the nation’s farmers markets accept electronic payments.

Luckily, the USDA, food availability and anti-poverty nonprofits are working together to provide farmers markets with EBT systems.  The inspiration behind this is largely preventive, in that the area’s poor can give up processed or non-nutritious foods for the fresh produce at the farmers market. Nonprofits and poverty groups combine funds with the USDA to install EBT systems at their markets.  Then, food stamp recipients can trade their stamps for small tokens and give them to vendors.  Some programs even match the withdrawn amount up to a certain cash value to create incentives for greater participation from the poor.  There are several restrictions on what the SNAP recipient can purchase, including no non-food (such as crafts, soaps, et cetera) and no prepared food that is for immediate eating.  If the farmers market is still too far away, and food stamp recipients have ample gardening space, they can use food stamps to purchase food-bearing seeds.

I think this is a great example of the government responding to the voices and desires of constituents.  In a recent New York Times article, members of Congress from both parties have acknowledged the rise in demand for cheaper and more organic foods.  Additionally, anti-poverty advocates succeeded in recent years in influencing changes in legislation that allow more access for the poor to farmers markets.  While the going still is a little small in terms of the amount of food stamps being used at farmers markets, I would be interested in seeing what happens when (and if) the movement gains momentum.  Maybe we will have a smaller need for treatment of obesity or nutrient-deficient related illnesses.  Maybe nothing will happen if food stamp recipients still can’t get to farmers markets. Who knows.  Either way, the passage of the new Farm Bill has rung in a new era for food systems.

One of the arguments heard frequently from consumers who think that we should be buying our food locally is the environmental one, which claims that if food travels fewer miles to reach its consumer, then this results in fewer greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. One of the issues that Robert Paarlberg has with this argument in Food Politics is that food transport usually only makes up about 11% of the total greenhouse gases that are created to make a food product and ship it to us. Therefore, those who are interested in reducing the carbon footprint of the foods they eat should be more focused on how much energy is being used to make the food instead of how much is being used to transport it. James E. McWilliams calls this approach to eating sustainably the “hub and spoke system” in his book Just Food. The hub is in reference to finding the areas of the country or world where each type of food can be grown the most sustainably. For example, growing a vegetable in season and shipping it across the country might use less energy than growing it locally inside a greenhouse.

The other part of the hub and spoke system is the spoke, which references finding the most sustainable way to transport food to the consumer, even if it is over a long distance. When local food advocates talk about the environmental effects of transporting food long distances, Robert Paarlberg claims they also many times fail to realize that the load size of an amount of food being transported is just as important as the distance traveled. A local farmer transporting a small amount of vegetables for a short amount of distance in a pickup truck may be using more energy per food unit than a large amount of vegetables being transported for a large amount of distance in an eighteen wheeler.

One of the main issues surrounding organic versus conventional farming is the effect both have on the environment, specifically in regards to fertilizer and pesticide. Conventional farmers use nitrogen and synthetic pesticides while organic farmers will use “natural biological controls” and animal waste (Paarlberg 174). So which is better?

Some will argue that organic farming is greener for many reasons. For one, the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides runoff into the Mississippi and eventually end up in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a “Dead Zone” where nothing but algae lives. The major chemical here is nitrogen, which is essential for the higher yield that conventional farmers desire. Organic farmers do not utilize any of these chemicals and therefore do not contribute to this type of water pollution. Second, certain conventional farmers do not utilize things like crop rotations, resulting in extreme soil erosion. These farmers will constantly plant the same crop, mainly corn, over and over without giving the soil any chance to rejuvenate essential nutrients. Organic farmers, in contrast, will alternate between planting corn and legumes or even plant the two together to improve soil conditions. Finally, conventional farmers can make use of genetically modified plants (GMOs) while organic farmers do not. While the environmental effect of this is not certain, organic farmers choose to err on the side of caution. All of these care explained in detail on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation’s (FAO) website.

On the other hand, there are environmental problems associated with organic farming as well. For one, organic farms can not produce as high a yield as conventional farmers and therefore need more land. As Paarlberg mentions in his book, “yields per acre for organic row crops and vegetables are found to be only 40-80 percent as high as the conventional average” (174). As a result, organic farms need much more farmland to achieve the same results. To put this in perspective, Paarlberg gives the example that Europe would “need an additional 28 million hectares of cropland, equal to all the remaining forest cover of France, Germany, Denmark, and Britain combined” to feed itself organically (175). FAO’s website does not address this issue. In addition, using manure as fertilizer does not entirely eliminate harmful runoff, as there are absolutely organic farmers “who over-apply or mismanage animal waste” (Paarlberg 173). Supporters of organic farming will argue that while it does not eliminate harmful runoff, it minimizes it as much as possible.

In conclusion, I don’t think that there is a cut and dry answer to which is better environmentally. I agree with Paarlberg, who argues that “the best farming systems for the environment will actually integrate conventional and organic methods” (174). I really like Natalina’s idea from Iowa Corn that the two can live and thrive together and that the two methods do not have to be pitted against each other. It is important to me to have options, as it is for most Americans, and providing the opportunity to choose between organic and conventional foods is a blessing, not a curse. I do not see the need to eliminate or try to minimize one option or the other as there are plenty of people who are willing to pay for both. As long as there is a market, let the farmers do what they want and the consumers buy what they want.

Today was a rather easy going day in Iowa.  It was also the first time it has been warm!  Suns out, guns out, right?  To summarize the day’s events, we began by learning about the Green Revolution and Norman Borlaug, the man responsible for the Green Revolution.   We made the almost daily drive to Des Moines to the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates to learn about the World Food Prize–awarded to “outstanding individuals who have made vital contributions to improving the quality, quantity, or availability of food throughout the world”–and the life of Norman Borlaug.  The overall tour was a little underwhelming in terms of information presented to us, especially because we were ushered out of the only room that had a good amount of information on global food issues and possible solutions.  However, our disappointment was dashed when we visited the farm of the impossibly wonderful Dalona Fiscus.  After showing us her cows and chickens, she permitted us to help her and her children plant this season’s flowers.  Luckily, it was close to feeding time for the cows and egg collecting for the chickens.  The latter involved reaching directly under the hen to get to her eggs.  I feel like I violated her privacy, but what’s done is done.  It was also incredibly warm under the chicken.  If that’s what it takes to get warm, then I will gladly have a bunch of chickens lay on me in the winter (as long as the don’t poop, peck, or cluck).

Norman Borlaug

The World Food Prize Hall of Laureates location

Planting in the gardern.

Just chillin’ with Dalona.

Luckily, before the tour at the World Food Prize, we were briefed on the subject by reading Food Politics by Robert Paarlberg.  It is a very good read so far, so I look forward to reading about the other material in the book.  Essentially, the Green Revolution is the massive increase in food production per hectare in third world areas, especially in India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.  This came about because of new farming practices, including using fertilizer and irrigation, and varieties of corn, soy, wheat, and rice–otherwise known as the primary food sources in those regions–resistant to environmental and chemical factors.  Norman Borlaug is involved because he was instrumental in developing and introducing these varieties to farmers in these nations.  Consequently, this practice has grown into a complex market of massive biochemical companies that develop and sell pesticides and herbicides as well as GMOs that are resistant to such.  Therefore, the environmentalists attack this approach for its environmental and social impacts, such as rising inequality, nutrient depletion in soil, and water contamination, among many other concerns.   Overall, critics say the Green Revolution is unsustainable. If you don’t want to read the Paarlberg book, I believe this wikipedia article is also a good summary of the subject and its criticisms.

If I had to pick a side, I would say I am moderate but leaning on the sides of the environmentalists.  I appreciate and support the mission of the World Food Prize and the Green Revolution in that they seek to eradicate world hunger by increasing the quantity, quality, and availability of food.  However, the long term environmental and socioeconomic effects should always be considered.  This more sustainable approach is known as “agroecology.” Unfortunately, most politics is driven by politicians and voters who want policies that bring quick, direct benefits but long-term costs.  In this way, we do not see what the actual price of our actions are.  Luckily, I believe that much of the public mood has shifted towards conservation, and many big agricultural plans typically involve an environmental checklist of sorts.  The major ills of the Green Revolution attacked by environmentalists and conservations began in a time when we were ignorant of the effects, and we now know to anticipate these effects in the future.  However, many parts of the world are stilly paying dearly for what happened in the 1970s and 80s, such as nations that hold areas of soil nutrient degradation, chemically polluted water, empowered and corrupt elites, and even worsened nutrition and health.  Hopefully, a better dialogue between the advocates of both sides of the issue will create a happy medium of sustainable and healthy worldwide food production.

The World Food Prize Hall of Laureates was a very eccentric place. The emphasis was placed on Norman Borlaug, of course, as well as the billion of lives he has saved. We learned about how he earned the Noble Peace Prize, The Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal. Three awards that only three (or seven) people have received, one being Martin Luther King. Norman Borlaug developed a semi-dwarf wheat hybrid which produced high yields and was disease-resistant. It required a lot of water and nitrogen, but the high yield was like never before. It dramatically changed the life of farmers in rural and poorer areas in Latin America and Asia. The World Food Prize Hall of Laureates seemed to focus more on the history of the house and the renovation I felt, but our book was very informative on the topic.

From Food Politics, Paarlberg explains that the Green Revolution introduced new wheat and rice seeds to Latin America and South and Southeast Asia. This cross breeding produced 8,000 new seeds with 11 different crops. These plants produced higher yields than had ever been seen before, but was not ignored by critics. The fears consisted of greater income inequality arising, environmental damage, reduction of biodiversity, and a few others. However, the benefits were so strong the people in these rural communities were not afraid. It reduced hunger in Asia, drove down the prices and increased the abundance of food, benefited the farmers, benefited nutrition, and was the quickest escape we have seen to malnutrition in a short amount of time. These crops were monumental, which is what the World Food Prize emphasized. The negative effects were those of poorer farmers being excluded from government benefits in Latin America and well as inequalities worsening. Also, excess water and pesticides we used killing the bugs that benefited the crops in Asia. Although there were pros and cons of the Green Revolution, they say that the only thing worse than the negative effects of it would be not having it at all. I believe that Borlaug opened the door to innovation in agriculture, including GMOs. Like the World Food Prize, I am all for these modified seeds and believe they cause more good than harm for these rural communities.

After we got done with the World Food Prize, escaping a parking ticket, we went to Dalona’s to help her plant. We did about 4 rows of flowers and also fed the cows and collected eggs from the chickens. It was a different experience for sure to reach under a chicken and grab the eggs right out from under it.

We got to feed them today!