[audio:http://wamcradio.org/EarthWise/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/EW-07-09-12-Green-Thumb.mp3|titles=EW 07-09-12 Green Thumb]
Farmers have a real challenge —how to feed 10 billion people within the next few decades. Conventional agriculturalists say this isn’t a problem. We have the technology needed to increase global crop yields to the levels enjoyed by Iowa’s farmers.
Yet at the same time, we see a growing interest organic farming—foods produced without hormones, antibiotics, or synthetic pesticides and fertilizer. Compared to traditional farms, organic farms house more biodiversity—from native birds and insects to plants and microbes. And organic foods are largely free of chemicals that are suspected as carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and environmental toxins.
Presumably, organics are healthier for you and the environment. But, since organic yields are 20-30% lower, a greater area of land must be farmed to feed the same number of people. Feeding the world with organic food will require the clearing of more natural areas. This means the loss of native ecosystems and the services they provide.
So, our choice of conventional or organic foods boils down to a choice of quantity vs. quality.
We will pay more for organic food—in real dollars and in environmental costs borne by the destruction of nature. We will pay more for conventional food, in the long-term health costs that toxic exposures will bring to us and to other non-target organisms.
The tradeoff will not be easy. Agriculturalists need to think beyond yield to embrace a concept of maximum sustainable yield that leaves a healthy environment for both people and nature.
Photo, taken on June 13, 2010, courtesy of Suzette Pauwels via Flickr.