Here's a quote:
The author's rabid advocacy of locavorism is especially myopic; she brushes past the costliness and impracticality... and ignores critics who argue that locavorism is an energy-inefficient fad.
Good god, where do I even begin? Yes, healthy and sustainable food is out of reach for many people in this country right now. But that is why I am calling for legislative reform to make it more accessible to all Americans (although I don't think this reviewer actually read the part of my book where I do that). And there is no amount of cost or effort one can put into healthy food that is not outweighed by the "costliness and impracticality" of diet-related health problems. THAT is why I got into food in the first place. I was working in health care and I saw how much Americans are suffering from heart disease and diabetes, etc, first hand. As Ezra Klein said the other day:
Spending trillions to increase health care coverage while refusing to make the small investments that would help people eat better is like installing an incredibly expensive heating system in your house but never bothering to purchase a sweater.
I bring this up here not to defend myself, but to point out how food issues play out in the mainstream media. Our point of view gets plenty of play in the New York Times and the Washington Post, but so do other (often corporate-funded) points of view that disagree with us.
Case in point, I got an email today from a friend. She had sent around an email to a listserv, citing a study that showed that organics can feed the world (even with a rising population). She received a reply from someone who she tells me has previously advocated for "bringing back DDT." This genius responded to cover crops by saying: "Why would you grow two crops so you can eat one?" As Atrios would say, "The stupid... it burns."
Cover crops can serve three functions. You plant a crop that will fix nitrogen in the soil before planting the crop you actually want to harvest. Let your cover crop grow and do its job and that replaces your need for commercial fertilizer and nourishes a rich, diverse ecosystem of soil life. Then, you kill your cover crop and leave it on the field as mulch when you plant your main crop. Now the cover crop does a second job, replacing herbicide by preventing weed seeds from getting any sunlight. A your cover crop mulch breaks down, it also continues to nourish soil life and builds up the soil.
Mr. Bring Back DDT attached an article to "prove" his point in this email. It was one called "The Problem with Organic Food," written by Abigail Haddad (a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank). Here's her argument:
There's just one problem with [organic, local food]: agriculture has moved away from small-scale, local, and organic farming because these types of farms are land- and labor-intensive and don't do a very good job of feeding lots of people. In addition, they are not definitively better for the environment, and their growth would lead to higher food prices than most Americans are willing to pay.
Her arguments? "Food miles" is a bogus measure, because industrial ag comes with economies of scale so that "not every food mile is equally efficient." True. Fair point. But it's a straw man.
She goes on to note that the average American in 1930 spent nearly a quarter of disposable income on food whereas now we spent something along the lines of 10 percent. Simultaneously, the percent of food purchased away from home rose. To her, this is proof that Americans want their food to be cheap and convenient. I would cite it as evidence of how we are being squeezed by the society we live in, in which productivity has risen but wages remained stagnant; in which many parents have no option to stay home to raise their children and many people work more than one job to make ends meet. Americans are doing what they must do to survive, but that doesn't mean they prefer it (nor is it healthy for them, as evidenced by our epidemic rise in diet-related chronic illness).
Another argument against organic food? She says it requires more labor and we'll need more farmers. I don't dispute that, nor do I have a problem with it. With today's unemployment problems, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be thrilled to work as farmers. Just look at how many people garden as a hobby - no doubt some of them would be thrilled to leave behind their cubicles for a career on a farm.
And... the big conclusion...
Indeed, the current model of agribusiness has led to massive increases in productivity, which is why organic operations have mimicked some of its practices. Before the advent of efficient fertilizers and technology, farming was dominated by small, family-owned farms whose inputs were seeds, water, natural fertilizer, sun, and labor. But the environmental case for that type of agriculture is weak...
What does this prove? That modern conventional agriculture is more efficient than 1930's agriculture. Fantastic. That's not a comparison at all between modern conventional vs. modern organic agriculture. And there's a reason for that. If this columnist had looked for data about today's organic ag, it would disprove her points. But a lack of evidence does not stop anyone from putting these ideas out there, and apparently people like Mr. Bring Back DDT and the person who reviewed my book believe them. |
