Can Organic Farming "Feed the World"?

Abstract

Can Organic Farming “Feed the World”?Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D.University of California, BerkeleyESPM-Division of Insect Biology201 Wellman-3112Berkeley, CA 94720-3112christos@uclink4.berkeley.edu The legacy of Industrial AgricultureWith the population passing the 6 billion mark last October, the debate over our ability tosustain fast growing population heating up. Biotechnology advocates in particular arebecoming very vocal in their claim that there no alternative to using genetically modified crops inagriculture if “we want to feed the world”. Actually, that quote might be true. It depends what theymean by we. It's true if the can feed the world refers to the agribusiness industry, whichhas brought the to the brink of food disaster and looking for way out. Biotech just maybe their desperation move. We'll starve without biotech, the title of an opinion piece byMartina McGloughlin, Director of the Biotechnology program at the University of California,Davis. Could be. Modern industrial agricultural – which forms the foundation for biotech – ranksas such dismal failure that even Monsanto holds them up as the evil alternative.The commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture today to feed the world... arenot inherently sustainable, Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro told the Greenpeace BusinessConference recently. They have not worked well to promote either self-sufficiency or foodsecurity in developing countries. Feeding the sustainably is out of the question withcurrent agricultural practice, Shapiro told the Society of Environmental Journalists in 1995. Lossof topsoil, of salinity of soil as result of irrigation, and ultimate reliance on petrochemicals ... are,obviously, not renewable. That clearly isn't sustainable.Shapiro referring to the 30-year-old Green Revolution which has featured an industrialfarming system that biotech would build on: the breeding of new crop varieties that couldeffectively use massive inputs of chemical fertilizers, and the use of toxic pesticides. As Shapirohas hinted, it has led to some severe environmental consequences, including loss of topsoil,decrease in soil fertility, surface and ground water contamination, and loss of genetic diversity.Do we really need to embark upon another risky technological fix to solve the mistakes of aprevious one? Instead, we should be looking for solutions that are based on ecological andbiological principles and have significantly fewer environmental costs. There such an alternativethat has been pioneered by organic farmers. In contrast to the industrial/monoculture approachadvocated by the biotech industry, organic agriculture described by the United Nations Food &Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a holistic production management system which promotes andenhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biologicalactivity.Despite the lack of support from government and university extension services in the US,consumer demand for organic products driving the organic movement ahead at 20% annual rateof market growth, primarily with the help of an increasing consumer demand for organic products.The amount of certified organic agricultural land increased from 914,800 acres in 1995 to 1.5million in 1997, jump of more than 60% in just two years.