Woodward presented some valid data in his article, based on universities studies such as the Study done by Iowa State University which concluded that the domestic food needs by the United States would be met using organic farming. Also, he supported his article with references to enhance his points
In my opinion, the presented data in Woodward’s article were unbiased and logically explained, but I believe also, that he could provide more scientific evidence to strengthen his argument.
An example of where Woodward tried to raise a case instead of presenting evidence is clear in his argument that in places where organic farming is not able to provide adequate food, the reason is not related to the technical ability of organic farming, but in the market, financial and political structures of the world. In pointing this issue Woodward used some words that aiming to convince the reader rather than providing facts and figures. (As his explanation about Africa debts and Ethiopia exporting agricultural products during the famine). The same can be noticed from his sentence about the commodity trading system where he said “There is not much room in this strategy for polices aimed at feeding the world. Feeding people simply does not figure in this system”.
Also, in his argument about the application of biotechnology as not being healthy or safe, being a reason for environmental damages, in addition to calling it as “industry-directed, undemocratic technology”. He approached this trying to make a case without presenting clear and supporting evidence in an unbiased way.
Woodward believed that organic agriculture can provide sustainable source of food as from the technical level of the subject. In short, Woodward sees that the issue is not a pure agricultural debate; it is more a change in global lifestyle that includes “new methods of production and new patterns of consumption, a lifestyle designed for permanence”. *1
“Environmental aspects of agriculture overwhelm critics”.
In his article, Dennis Avery on the other hand go totally against the organic farming saying that it can not in any way provide even half the need of the world’s food. In addition, Avery thinks that using organic agriculture makes people eat less healthy food (fruits & vegetables) and make them subject to cancer because of the fact that most of the organic yields are infested with molds and toxins from the soil and the pathogens in it. He basically promote for the conventional farming system.
Actually Avery was trying hard to raise many cases for the purpose of obtaining public attention towards the high-yields farming (conventional farming). The article argues that it is the only sustainable way that is successful, healthy and provides the needs of food for the world population. The article was issued in 1995, and I think the presented arguments lacked for validity, they were basically based on the author’s own opinion without enough supportive evidence like studies, researches or references, except for his personal resume being the director of Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute.
The main purpose of the argument, as I felt, was the author trying to stop the Clinton Administrations’ new pesticide proposals.
Most of the interpretations of the presented data were not appropriate or enough evidenced. For example Avery emphasized that organic agriculture is causing the cancer diseases “Organic fruits and vegetables are twice as costly (and shabby) for a reason. Insects, fungi and bacteria get most of the organic farmer’s crop” while high-yield farming on the other hand is healthier and cheaper. All without any scientific evidence.
Also, Avery argued in his article that organic agriculture is one of the reasons for increased soil erosion, and it is a threat to the wildlife, while the high-yields farming are free of this problem. Again no evidences were provided.
He tried also raising a case when he said “High-yield farming does not poison soils with chemicals. The only ‘poisoned soils’ are in bad-done irrigation systems where too much water and too little drainage build up salts. The answers: Improve the drainage and price the water”.
Avery also accused the organic farming of being the real threat on wildlife and environment but did not provide any scientific or health information to prove this.
In the author’s opinion, high-yields farming is a sustainable method for feeding the world, because it is safe, healthy, less soil erosion, better for environment and cheaper than the organic farming. All what it needs to receive acceptance is more positive public strategy on behalf of knowledge based farming.
In my personal point of view, I prefer the Organic farming, and I don’t mind paying a little extra for my food in order to ensure that I am eating safe and clean food. We can not deny though the importance of technology, and we can use it to obtain and find better techniques to apply the method of organic farming successfully and get the most of it.
*1) Schumacher, E.F. (1975). Small is Beautiful. Blond and Bridges Ltd. London.
*2) T172, Theme 3 Food chains. “Organic Farming is all very well, but can it feed the world. Lawrence Woodward.
