Credit: Jim Wehtje/Photolibrary
PESTICIDES HAVE ALSO grown safer as regulatory authorities raise the bar and chemical companies oblige. In August 2006, after a 10-year review of pesticide safety, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended cutbacks on the use of several pesticides – but these were overwhelmingly to protect against accidental workplace poisonings. "For the chemicals that are currently listed, I'm very confident that there is no risk to the general population through the diet," says Jim Jones, director of the agency's pesticide program.
There was also relatively little concern about the impact of pesticides in the environment. One exception was lindane, an organochlorine which accumulates in animal fat and is now largely restricted. This was deemed to pose a risk to indigenous people living above the Arctic Circle because of their high-fat diet. As far as the agency is concerned, the current batch of allowed agricultural chemicals are safe for consumers and the environment.
It's almost an axiom that pesticides are to blame for our major ecological problems. But once again, finding the evidence turns out to be a little difficult. Like many of today's environmental warriors, the University of Melbourne's Richard Roush was called to arms after reading Carson's Silent Spring. But after 30 years working in land management and sustainability, he thinks it's finally time to admit victory in the war on pesticides. "We've come a long way since Silent Spring… I am hard-pressed to think of a case where we can now attribute an environmental disaster to pesticide use."
In fact the only one that sprang to mind for Roush was a case of pyrethroids and fish abnormalities (pyrethroids are a synthetic version of plant-derived pyrethrins; the source turned out not to be not agriculture, but urban gutters. The finding stunned Roush. "Farmers have been trained for 20 years not to use chemicals where they could wash into streams; the problem was city people using pesticides to control household pests in a frivolous way."
Some of the blame for frog declines is often laid at the feet of agricultural pesticide run-off, but nailing such a link has proved elusive. In fact, frog losses from California's high Sierra have been much more convincingly linked to trout introductions. And chytrid fungus has proven the more likely culprit in many other cases of frog declines (see "Amphibian annihilation", p72). "[As far as frog extinctions go], I am much more concerned with global warming and the encroach of exotic species than pesticide run-off from farms," says Roush.
Environmental groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature seem to have tacitly acknowledged that the judicious use of chemicals is the sustainable way to go. In 1996, they formed the non-profit group Protected Harvest with Wisconsin potato growers and the University of Wisconsin. Its goal: to develop ecologically sound principles for potato farming. The farmers reduced their use of chemical and natural pesticides using the principles of IPM and they also became better custodians of their non-farmed land by introducing native species and maintaining biodiversity.
"We're just starting to see market penetration as larger corporations get interested," says Deana Knuteson, a former University of Wisconsin entomologist who is now an education officer for Protected Harvest. With their high yields and good economic returns, she says they are confident about being able to expand to other vegetables.
ACCORDING TO VACLAV SMIL, an agronomist at Canada's University of Manitoba and an expert on the history of nitrogen fertiliser production, about 60 per cent of people today are fed thanks to the use of artificial nitrogen fertiliser.
Take that away, and all that nitrogen has to be produced organically – effectively using land to produce manure rather than food. Alex Avery, director of food research and education at the Hudson Institute, a conservative U.S. think tank, estimates that this would require doubling the amount of land now in cultivation. That would mean tearing down our remaining forests, he argues.
Even so, the poor yield of organic farming means that food production would be a major problem. In Australia, for instance, organic farming yields 50 per cent or less per square kilometre because of pest problems and phosphate-depleted soils. (Phosphate is locked away in the ancient clays; conventional farmers help themselves to highly soluble chemically-made superphosphate. Organic farmers can't use a chemical, so they use poorly soluble rock phosphate.)
In the late 1990s, Denmark seriously considered converting to 100 per cent organic agriculture. A report chaired by Svend Bichel, a former president of the Danish Society for the Conservation of Nature, concluded that should this occur, food production would drop by half.
There is one way the world can feed all the billions alive today with organic farming: we all go vegetarian. Half the world's grain is grown for cattle, and this is undeniably a highly inefficient use of soil, farming land and resources. But the reality is that the demand for meat, is – thanks to the growing wealth of developing nations – forecast to double by 2030.
Popular or not, it's clear that organic food is not necessarily healthier, nor more sustainable or better for the environment. With the Earth's climate changing fast, and the human population heading for nine or 10 billion, we need solutions based on scientific evidence rather than faith and good intentions.
The boutique organic foods café is a great place to enjoy the romantic idyll of traditional farming and natural foods, but when it comes to the reality of feeding the world, one would have to agree with Roush: "If improving sustainability and reducing the environmental footprint is the goal, we need to be prepared to use the best tools we have."
Elizabeth Finkel is a Melbourne science writer, a contributing editor of Cosmos and the author of Stem Cells: Controversy on the Frontiers of Science.


"Organic" food... laff...
"Organic" food is the new snake oil. The problem is, this nostrum is being wholeheartedly embraced not just by the pretty people and ivory tower elitists, but by governments, and little inconsequentials like actual facts are clearly not going to stand in the way of Politically Correct "progress".
If these whack-jobs have their way, within our lifetimes, we will once again be living in 14th-Century serfdom, complete with a super-privileged ruling class and rampant poverty, death and disease for everyone else. They won't come out and say it, but the fact remains, this IS the earthy-people's long-term goal.
Hoorah to you for adding another voice in the wilderness, and keep up the good work!
BadKarma Reader - have you actually done any real research?
There are the blind, the dumb and then there is the downright stupid! Hey BadKarma reader have you actually ever done any real research or indeed ever even been to the wilderness from which you say you cry?
Perhaps if you care to stop your blubber for long enough to visit www.i-sis.org.uk (and perhaps Ms Finkel could research a bit more non Monsanto backed data to refer to next time) and read...
"Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on GM at a public conference, attended by UK environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants, in London on 10 May 2003.
The conference coincided with the publication of a draft report, The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World, calling for a ban on GM crops to make way for all forms of sustainable agriculture. This authoritative report, billed as "the strongest, most complete dossier of evidence" ever compiled on the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture, is being finalised for release 15 June 2003."
Are all these scientists 'earthy-people' too? Funny that, I thought we all lived on this one earth... maybe you are from a different planet!
GM food
I totally agree, the proof that GM food is bad in many ways are there and we have to open our eyes and do something. That dossier of evidence, where scientist and authority worked on, is the proof that GM free food is the way to go and that we are working against our own good. To produce more is great, but what when our health is at stake. Quality over quantity they said? I'm pretty much certain that is we worked as hard to find ways to solve current agricultural problems in an ecological way, we would have less pollution, better global health and probably a lot less problems with new disease popping "out of nowhere"!
Just my 2 cents..
Vivi Peterson
Sustainable agriculture - a myth
No matter how, where or with what methods agriculture, i.e remove nature and plant whatever is unsustainable. The question then remains how to feed the current most devastating pests of the planet -us! Fiddling around the edges with GM, no GM organic, no organic etc etc is just that - fiddling around the edges of the population problem.
How about some of the 'actual facts' on GM?
Interesting that the first comment listed here is such a strong advocate of the article...hmm? Have you ever even looked into the 'actual facts' that you speak of? I found a very informative pod cast from Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics on wonderfulworldmedia.net. Check it out and then get back to me! The panels on lifting GM bans are sitting right now in Australia - do you even care about what you eat or are you a Mackers consumer? If they lift the ban on GM in Australia in Feb 2008, eventually no one will even have the choice of eating clean non-GM contaminated food and articles like this one are a travesty of mis-reporting.
A rather disappointing effort from a magazine that I had thought would know better.
Organic vegetables, beef, chicken, milk?
I don't agree with the last comment. Even if i respect your opinion, there was no way in the past to see if that snake oil was actually working. But today, scientists from all over the world proved that antibiotics and growth hormones will be bad for us in the long term. Think about kraft dinner and doritos, that just can't be good for out health ;) If we eat modified vegetables, beef, chicken, even milk, it's for only one reason, it's because right now we're putting money before health. Big corporation don't have enough opposition right now, so they do what they want.
Patty
You are ignorant
Organic food means that your body is not ingesting, storing, and altering DDT or other toxic chemicals. Thanks to non 'earthy-people' (by the way you also need the earth to survive) the meat industry is allowed to flourish and now every one who does not hunt for their own meat has to worry about not only whether their vegetables and fruits are genetically modified (which by the way there are no regulations for in the U.S.) but also what types of artificial hormones have been crudely injected (and by injected I mean force fed) into the animals scheduled for mass slaughter. It is sick. If you think that mass produced food is better, more environmentally friendly or nutritious I advise you to seriously reconsider.
Laff and a Haff!
BadKarma (pretty much says it all really!) I find it very ironic that you have been able to connect pastoral traditions to serfdom- You are defiantly suffering from a patriotic bout of paranoia! I see around me everyday, extremely sick, overweight people that have been cut down at a time in their lives that they should be at their healthiest, because of a misguided and abusive system that has no place in nature. If you want to understand what it is like to be subjugated, you need to look at a system that prevents one from having a choice as to how the very thing that they consume is produced!
Organic food
The cafeteria at Monsanto has banned genetically engineered food at the insistence of Monsanto employees. That's a pip, eh? The Bt plants that are so lauded in the article are responsible for the deaths of thousands of sheep , goats and cattle in India after they grazed on Bt cotton.Dr Finkel speaks of Australian farmers and 'modern farming techniques w/ safer pesticides that allow for living soil. Perhaps that is true in Australia, but my first hand experience is that you can't grow healthy food in sick soil. And you cannot have healthy soil by dumping tons of petro chemical additives, be it fertiliser(what?) or synthetic pesticides.As for the good Doctor's assertion that organic farming cannot feed the world,I refer her and anyone else interested to the recent University of Michigan study which shows not only can organic supply enough food to feed the world, but that it is the preferrable model for poor and developing countries.
Petro Additives: Say what it is, Urea
I used to work at a Urea Plant.
Urea is an organic chemical, same stuff you piss out every day in the process of eliminating Nitrogen from your system. It is highly soluble, and actually was the founding of organic chemistry when it was first produced from non-organic chemicals in 1828.
It is put on the soil in a dilted form, but chemically is not any different then your own, naturally produced kidney juice.
We are not putting oil on the ground. We are not putting anything on the ground as fertizer that is not naturally produced by every living organism.
One is just far more pure, clean, and easy to control.
The other is crap.
Josh