Redefining a topic takes effort and multiple messengers. Once people have a belief or perception in their head, its hard to replace it -- even with facts, sometimes especially with facts. So it is with the term "sustainable agriculture" and "sustainable food." But there are some indications that a new, more pragmatic way of thinking about these issues is making its way into the mainstream media.
Many people seem to have come to the belief that only small scale, local and organic production is sustainable. One of the points I have tried to drive home is that aside from being factually debatable that these practices are in and of themselves sustainable; these practices certainly are not the answer to our global sustainability challenges as we face some 3 billion more people joining the planet by 2050. This inconvenient fact often gets lost in the shuffle of folks feeling good about buying organic -- but the ugly truth is that if most American farms switched to organic, there would be far less available food at a time when the world already has trouble keeping pact with the existing population.
As I have seen in numerous discussions with folks who earnestly believe they are doing the better thing for their health and the planet by buying SLO (small-scale, local, organic), this theory falls apart if they are forced to consider the needs of millions of poor and starving people (and the millions more on the way) around the world. If we are all "voting with our forks" as people are encouraged to do by organic proponents, then stop to consider thefull ramifications of what you are voting for. You are voting for the production of less food overall for the planet and its people will certainly suffer greatly for that choice.
Ok, its all fine and good for me to keep saying that - and for most of you, my dear readers who usually agree with me as well; but now we are starting to see a new messenger bringing forth a call for common sense and sanity. Yes friends, some environmentalists are now brave enough to say what we have known for some time. I say they are brave because it is always brave to go against the grain of your own community.
Yesterday, I was happy to read on the New York Times sustainability blog, Dot Earth, about a "hybrd path to feeding 9 billion people on a still-green planet." The post details the work of environmentalist Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund to try to help find solutions to the global challenges to natural resources that come with needing to feed everyone. I was particularly pleased to see a positive discussion of the role that genetic engineered and hybrid seeds will play in getting us to a place where we can meet humanity's needs without gobbling up every square inch of land for use in agriculture:
"The genetic work he describes includes all uses of genetic research to improve plant productivity or farming efficiency. Genetic modification, the realm of the GMO’s that are anathema to some environmentalists and much of Europe, is a subset of that arena. [At the Climate, Mind and Behavior Conference of the Garrison Institute on Thursday, Clay laid out the logic behind working with big corporations to foster food production that can fit on a finite planet. He made a point that he stressed at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of science: "In the next 40 years we're going to have to produce as much food as was produced in last 8,000."]"
Jason lays out his thinking in more detail in a draft paper describing constructive ways for us to meet the daunting needs of future generations while balancing conservation and preservation of the planet that is home to us all. You may not agree with everything he says, but you should greatly appreciate the approach he is taking. By that I mean that he is offering pragmatic solutions to get to where we all ultimately want to be: in balance. It is really refreshing to see this kind of thinking come from an environmentalist working for a major national group -- to see that there is recognition from some within that sector that the challenges we face are too large to be petty and parochial. There is no better way to open the minds of those who look down on the technology and efficiency ag uses than to show them that it is not just the ag industry that understands its value, but increasingly there are informed environmentalists with a global view that value efficient ag as well.
In perhaps another sign of the shifting winds on this topic, I saw a very interesting piece today in the online version of The Atlantic magazine by contributor James McWilliams, history professor at Texas State University that provides a critical look at what he refers to as the "elitist fetish" of the foodie / sustainable food movement:
"Essentially the message sustainable foodies end up of delivering goes something like this: Only a few can eat the way we eat, but the way we eat is the best way to achieve social and environmental justice. Join us if you can. If you can't, that's too bad for you, because we're eating high on the hog and, in so doing, saving the earth."
McWilliams details a number of examples that show there is more behind the foodie movement than food - that in fact, there are a whole host of psychological and social elements that are helping to construct what a small but growing segment of people believe to be the best way to grow food. By exposing that some of what's going on here is the age-old desire for humans to make themselves superior to others rather than a real fact-based focus on food and how its grown; the author helps bring an opportunity for self-reflection for the foodies out there. Of course, such opportunities are often not welcomed, but they have a funny way of re-shaping public opinion over time.
What I find refreshing is that in the span of the last two days, there are pieces in the New York Times and The Atlantic that showcase a common sense perspective that is quite different from the usual coverage of sustainable food and sustainable agriculture. Could it be that the winds are shifting in favor of a more pragmatic focus on agricultural sustainability issues? I hope so!
0 comments:
Post a Comment