Food Policy at a Crossroads, A World of Plenty or a World of Famine and Pestilence - An examination of competing philosophies

Organic Farming Background

        Organic Farming is a sustainable form of agriculture.  As such, it can be designated by various names such as agro-ecology, organic agriculture, biological agriculture or ecological agriculture.  The simplest definition of Organic Farming is farming without chemicals, but, this is a very simplistic way of describing a complex, synergistic use of farmland to achieve increased yields without the use of harmful chemicals.  “Organic farmers, and ecological farmers in general, farm holistically  – they design production systems that capitalize on the positive synergies among enterprises that exist in time and space”. Additionally, Organic farming is based on an agricultural system that maintains and replenishes soil fertility without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers.  According to the National Organic Standards Board, “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity.  It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, and enhance ecological harmony”.

        Due to its non-reliance on readily available chemicals, herbicides, pesticides and its labor intensive nature, Organic Farming currently has a higher cost of goods.  However, with the introduction of Organic Certification standards, an acceleration of consumer acceptance has helped materialize growth.  Over the past two years, Organic Farming products have gone from sales at a specialty health food stores to mainstream stores.  In fact, the global market for Certified Organic Foods increased by 10.1% and reached $23 billion in 2002.   Most of the growth has occurred in North America, which overtook Europe as the largest market for organic food and drinks.  Worldwide, there are almost 23 million hectares of organic farmland.  Finally, as consumer acceptance of organic foods increase and more farms convert to organic farming methods, costs are expected to drop and lead to lower consumer prices.  This will inevitably fuel better, more efficient and standardized organic farming methods further lowering costs and consumer prices.

The Problem

        While the majority of the developed world enjoys a fair abundance of foods and relatively no hunger, the larger under-developed part of the world is suffering from famine and starvation.  This condition will get worse as we approach the mid-century mark because according to the United Nations Population Division Report, the world population reached 6.1 billion in mid-2000 and is currently growing at an annual rate of 1.2%.  In 2050, the total world population is expected to be around 13 billion people, of which 11 billion will be in less developed regions.  However, the agricultural trade of developing countries during this period represents only 50% of total world exports and it is concentrated in a minority of developing countries, particularly those that trade in fresh fruit and vegetables.  “This situation creates an uneven trade balance in food from developed to developing countries.”  Who will feed the 13 billion inhabitants of our planet in 2050?  Where will the food needed be grown?  How will we be able to produce such quantities of food?  We cannot feed all of the current population of the earth and it is less than 50% of what it will be in 2050.

        DeGreef (The head of regulatory and government affairs for Syngenta, formerly Novartis) says “the only ways to increase food availability is to (i) increase productivity, (ii) increase the area cultivated, and (iii) decrease post-harvest losses”.   Obviously, we must rethink our approach to food production.  We must analyze current available methods, modify them if possible, or develop totally new and unique food production techniques.  Whatever approach is adopted we must balance the costs to society, both in real monetary form and in the more intangible and maybe more costly potential damage to our planet.  We have to look at a cost-benefit analysis and a potential willingness to pay for those who are conscientious about the types of foods that are out in the market.

        Currently the world is looking at two competing approaches to solve the problem; GMFs or Organic Farming.  Proponents on either side have been rigorously arguing that their approach is right.  We will present pros and cons for both sides and finally try to analyze which approach will make more sense to follow.

GMOs and GMFs

Pros

        Genetically Modified Foods have been publicize as the answer to our food production problem.  Given GMOs quick improvement of crop characteristics, the effect are immediately evident when the modified cell becomes a full plant, farmers can reap the rewards of higher yields, pest resistance and herbicide tolerance at once.  Furthermore, as we become more skillful with the technology, we will be able to produce plants that deliver more than just the above benefits.  For example, plants that will produce plastics, industrial chemicals, and even vaccines to counteract many diseases throughout the world.

        Rice has already been genetically enhanced to produce increased levels of vitamin A (Golden Rice), thus alleviating vitamin deficiency in underdeveloped countries where rice is a staple.  Virus-resistant sweet potatoes, insect-resistant potatoes, virus resistant squash, melons and cucumbers are also being developed for Africa.  Also, rice with a higher level of bio-available  iron is in process of development. Thus, proponents of agro-biotechnology essentially see the benefits occurring in waves or phases with benefits initially to producers and then to consumers.  As Dr. Liz Dennis points out, “the results of the first wave of research will deliver direct benefit to farmers and producers through improved production efficiency, such as plants requiring reduced fungicide and pesticide use, through increased inbuilt pest and disease resistance, and crops better able to cope with environmental stresses such as weeds.”   This research creates options for farmers who want to develop a system that will have a lower environmental effect on their land.

        Secondly, the gene technology wave will also provide benefits for the consumers through products that have special features of improvement.  For example, “consumers prefer citrus that has few or no seeds and that is easy to peel.  Furthermore, oil seed crops like canola are being modified to produce oils of a particular composition to enhance nutritive value or for specialist uses in the food processing industry.”   Even cereals with modified starch or protein content are being created for those seeking more nutritive value to their balanced breakfasts.

        Thirdly, this wave delivers enhanced levels of pharmaceutical and industrial products from plants, leading our industries to an entirely new business spectrum.  Examples include “genetically modified plants with proteins that act as vaccines and plants with the ability to make industrial oils and plastics, thus offering an alternative to petrochemical oils.  Plants potentially could provide components of detergents, nylon, glue, paints, and lubricants.  They could provide a renewable, biodegradable source of these high value specialty products.”

        Many applications of Genetic Modification of plants are being developed.  They bring a new approach to crop development by eliminating the imprecise and lengthy cross breeding to develop or enhance specific desirable traits.  The beneficiaries of these new enhancements will include:

• Farmers - higher yields; less use of pesticides and herbicides; plants that can withstand adverse conditions ( salinity, drought, temperature variations); better shelf life; higher prices for crops that provide higher nutritive content.
• Consumers - less damage to the environment by diminished use of polluting chemicals; foods with enhanced properties like better taste, better shelf life, enhanced nutritive values, enhanced features (seedless, thin skin); better availability of “out of season” foods.
• Business - increased sales; higher revenues due to proprietary seeds; new markets for  enhanced non-traditional products (production of chemicals, plastics, vaccines).
• Society - less pollution due to lower use of polluting chemicals, herbicides and pesticides; more sustainable and efficient agriculture; lower foods costs, especially in the developing nations; value added foods that contain vaccines, higher nutritive values and enhanced medicinal features.

Farmers that are using GMOs can already see some of these benefits.  As Dr. Liz Dennis points out, “the introduction of insect-tolerant varieties of cotton to Australian agriculture has resulted in an overall reduction in the transgenic crop of 50% of normal pesticide applications.  This has the effect of decreasing the risks, for both human health and the environment”.  Many farmers choose this method of production because it also leads to more cost-effectiveness ways of farming.

If the promises of GMOs and GMFs are realized, they have the potential to truly change the world’s food production and benefit humanity.

Cons

        The opponents of GMOs and GMFs argue that not only have the promises of this technology not materialized, but also that it can lead to an apocalyptic future; a future that has the soil of the earth irreparably contaminated, as well as ecological disruptions, leading to extinction of species of plants and animals.  However, most frightening is the migration of the genetic modifications into man, leading to the possible extinction of our species. Opponents also point out that GMOs and GMFs have not fulfilled their promises and that instead of benefits they are turning into an ecological nightmare.  As Nathan Batalion puts it, “genetic pollution can alter the life in soil forever!  Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible realities in the future.”  Genetically altered foods have not been around long enough to know if they are safe enough for human consumption.

        In January 27, 1999, the news agency Reuters reported in the New Scientist magazine about a computer model developed by Dutch researchers to mimic human food digestion.  The Dutch researchers found that the computer model predicted that antibiotic-resistance genes introduced into food could jump to bacteria in the gut.  It showed that “DNA lingers in the intestine” and that “DNA from a bacteria had a half-life of six minutes in the large intestine.”

A naturally occurring pesticide bacterium, Bacillus Thuringiensis or Bt, that has been engineered into plants posses another problem as it enters the food supply.  Katherine DiMatteo points out that “Bt crops, such as corn, potatoes, and cotton, are genetically engineered to contain genes from this natural pesticide Bt.  When organic farmers spray Bt on their fields, the Bt bacteria is killed by sunlight, so it is not contained in the food or it can be washed off.”  However, when Bt is directly injected in our corps, the gene stays and keeps producing the toxins inside the cells.  Never the less, “no one knows what effect consuming Bt crops will have on human health.”  Everyone who consumes Bt foods assumes that because it is on the market then it must be safe to eat.

        Opponents of GMOs and GMFs also point out that while the primary beneficiary of this technology is supposed to be the farmers, this is not the case.  Due to the proprietary nature of the technology, companies that control the patents are demanding premiums and control of how the GM seeds are to be used.  By creating sterile plants (“terminator” gene) or plants with a “traitor” gene (plants must be sprayed with specific chemicals at specific times or they die), the biotechnology companies deny the farmer the right of harvesting the seeds produced by his plants and using them the following season.  

        By using this method of production, farmers are not only changing the genetics of their crops, but the desired traits that have been engineered into the plant are passed on to the wild weeds or to other offending species.  Thus creating super weeds or super pests with increased resistance and requiring higher usage of chemicals.  In a special report on October of 2003 on GM food, the magazine New Scientist sites the results of a four-year study conducted in the United Kingdom insinuating that GM crops to be worse for the environment.  The report stated that “the results of the world’s largest ever trial of GM crops show that two of the three tested - oilseed rape and sugar beet - had a worse impact on farmland wildlife than conventional crops.”  In addition, an editorial in the magazine the New Scientist pointed out that GM crops will not make the environmental concerns go away, but instead, it will lead to more detrimental problems in the long run, such as “GM crops cross-pollinating with each other to produce “bastardized” strains and  resistance to more than one herbicide”

        The major concern is that genetic engineering could permanently alter the ecosystem.  Once genetically altered plants and animals are introduced into the environment, they may endanger species and potentially reduce biological diversity.  European scientists have reported on studies indicating, “that genetically engineered crops could harm ladybugs and green lacewings.”  In addition, “in May 2000, a leading European zoologist found that genes from genetically engineered canola jumped the species barrier and were picked up by the bacteria in the digestive tracts of bees.”   This indicates that if people ingest genetically engineered foods, these antibiotic-resistance genes have the capacity to mutate and cause serious problems that may not be reversible by usage of antibiotics because the bacteria will be able to resist it.

        GMOs and GMFs have many critics that say it is not the answer to our food problems.  The criticisms come from all sectors and encompass many possible problems - ranging from the risk of transferring crop traits to other species, to increases in use of herbicides and pesticides.  Furthermore, increased control of seed supplies by a small number of companies, to damage to earth’s ecology and finally, the possibility of danger to human health.  All of the criticisms have to be considered and thoroughly addressed for GMOs and GMFs to be accepted.

Organic Farming

Pros

        Organic Farming and traditional farming may be viewed as being similar; however, the truth is that, while they share certain similarities they are very different in practice and consequences.  Organic Farming is a sustainable form of agriculture and it is more than just a set of farming methods or practices.  Organic farming differs from other farming systems in a number of ways.  As defined by the E.U Commission on Agriculture Organic farming, “it favors renewable resources and recycling, returning to the soil the nutrients found in waste products.  Organic farming respects the environment’s own systems for controlling pests and disease in raising crops and livestock and avoids the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, growth hormones, antibiotics or gene manipulation.”  Organic farming does not abuse the land or any animals that ingest it.

        Organic farming is a “well-balanced, self-sufficient and sustainable agro-eco system that operates on a basis of local and renewable resources”.   In organic farming, nature has its own values and it is dealt as the most important part of the world. Organic Framing offers many advantages to farmers, consumers and society.  Due to its underlying principles and practices it contributes to the overall health of the planet by cleaning up the soil and water, and preserving wildlife and bio-diversity.  It minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, limiting environmental damage and protecting human health.  Increases self reliance in farmers by utilizing their knowledge and skills of the local environment, and putting it to use in solving unique local agricultural problems.

        In industrialized nations, crops yield comparably higher. As shown from results of 15 years of a long term, large-scale experiment carried out by the Rodale Institute, “after a transition period of four years, crops grown under organic systems (animal- and legume-based) yielded as much as and sometimes better than conventional crops.  Moreover, organic systems out-produced the conventional system when conditions were lousy”.  By reducing or eliminating the level of chemical usage the most obvious benefit of Agro-ecology is a cleaner environment.  The reduced or non-use of pesticides and herbicides diminishes the leaching of these chemicals into the soil and eliminates possible contamination of our water supplies and reduces our exposure to possible carcinogens and mutagens.  The natural ecological balance is re-established and a biological vitality flourishes.  Biological diversity can take place and ecological problems can be handled by applying natural solutions.  The (FAO) review found that “organic agriculture poses no risk of water pollution through synthetic pesticides and that nitrate leaching rates per hectare are significantly lower compared to conventional systems.  By offering food resources and shelter for beneficial arthropods and birds, organic agriculture contributes to natural pest control.  It also contributes to the conservation and survival of pollinators”.

        Furthermore, our health is protected because our exposure to certain dangerous chemicals is diminishing; meaning, we are not exposed to dangerous chemicals in our soil, water or air, because we do not ingest them when we eat our foods.  Organic Farming does not use anti-biotics, GMOs or any other growth promoting or enhancing chemicals.  This curtails the incidence of allergic reactions, the growth of anti-biotic resistant super-bugs or other food borne mutation.  During the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) incident in the UK, not one animal was detected with the disease in farms practicing Organic Farming.  Nonetheless, Organic Farming may be able to provide healthier foods by reducing exposure to chemical allergens and increasing the natural benefits inherent in plants to combat certain diseases.  Additionally, Organic Farming leads to efficient production, environmental and local economic sustainability with benefits to local communities, and improved food security.

Cons

        The critics of Organic Farming point out that many of the advantages touted by its proponents really do not exist.  In many ways, Organic Farming is viewed as a very expensive way of production and a method that is not self-sustained enough to provide food to the world.  Opponents maintain that because of the curtailed use of chemicals, pesticides and herbicides; furthermore, agro-ecological farming allows the increase of weed crops and biological pests.  Generally speaking, “weed problems are more numerous on the organic farms.”  This leads to diminished crop yields and an economic hardship for the farmer.  Additionally, the labor intensive nature of Organic Farming leads to increased costs that either diminishes the farmers’ incomes or becomes too expensive for consumers.  This allows only affluent consumers to purchase organic foods leaving the majority of consumers out, creating a small marketplace.

        Detractors point out that organic foods have a high cost of production because of more costly solutions to pest, disease and weed management without the use of agrichemicals.  The solutions developed further detract from the commercial value of the crops due to limited shelf life and unpleasant cosmetic appearance.  Aside from the present problems, organic farming has higher prices for organic fertilizers, diseases, insects, pests, and weeds.  Thus, “organic farming is facing difficulties such as low yielding capacity, poor appearance of the organic produces and higher production cost.”  The biggest criticism of organic farming is that it is very similar to existing agricultural practices.  Traditional farming and organic farming differ only in certain aspects that are not based on scientific fact. They are, “soluble mineral inputs that are prohibited and synthetic herbicides and pesticides that are rejected in favor of natural pesticides.  But agriculture based on these principles results in a more costly product, mainly because of lower yields and inefficient use of land.”  The benefits for wildlife equal those provided by organic farming but at a far lower cost to consumers.

        Those who are against Organic Farming believe that this method of food production is not the answer to our problems.  It is rooted in an un-scientific ideology that cannot fulfill our future food production needs, and aside from that, it is too costly for those underdeveloped worlds.  All in all, “organic agriculture was formulated as an ideology, but today’s global problems-such as climate change and population growth-need agriculture pragmatism and flexibility, not ideology”

Analysis

        All decisions that affect human kind’s future, as the topic of food production, elicit intensely passionate arguments.  While there are many positions and many varied solutions, in this paper we are focusing on the respective merits of Organic Farming vs. Genetically Modified Foods.  The problem is real, however, the right solution is difficult to uncover.  Our climate is changing, population is growing at un-precedent rate, and our resources are finite.  Furthermore, to make matters worse, greed has reared its ugly head.  There are vast sums of money at stake, making the companies involved fight harder to have their agenda accepted.  Political pressure is creating animosity between allied nations and pitting the industrialized countries against the developing nations.   Whatever the result, whichever way we decide to go, there will be a cost; however, the magnitude of the cost has to be commensurate to the benefit that human kind will derive.  In this section, we will try to analyze the cost to benefit of each position and try to predict the willingness to pay by the ultimate consumer.

        High cost has been a great argument against Organic Farming.  Indeed, currently the direct cost to consumers of organic foods is higher than other foods.  This is because the current state of Agro-ecological farming requires more capital input by the farmer due to higher costs of raw materials and a higher degree of oversight and diligence to guarantee the organic status of the foods.  Nevertheless, these higher prices are not as crucial if examined against the consumers’ willingness to pay.  The statistics show that the certified organic food market is growing at an accelerated rate.  According to the Organic Monitor, “ global sales of organic food & drinks increased by 10.1 percent to USD 23 billion in 2002 according to latest research” They also indicate that while Europe was the largest organic food market, it has been overtaken by North America where the use of GMOs is prevalent and rigorously supported.  Organic Monitor also predicts that organic food demand will not be limited to the western countries as regional markets develop.

        In Europe there has been the strongest opposition to GM foods and the strongest support for organics.  Most countries in Europe have enacted very tough GM labeling laws, indicating that a food product contains GM ingredients before shelving the product.  This has led to a trade dispute between Europe and the US.  Additionally, The European Commission on Agriculture has even recommended agri-environmental premiums be given to organic farmers. “Organic farmers are entitled to claim agri-environmental premiums since it is recognized that this particular farming system benefits the environment.”  The Danish government has actively promoted organic farming as a key part of its agricultural policy.  Organic farming “can in many ways, directly address the problems of industrial agriculture, since the development of organic production has been part of government policy for many years.” 

        The UK has been the most vocal opponent to GM foods.  They have spearheaded the drive to fully test GM crops and foods and thoroughly investigate their possible contaminating effect to the rest of the food supply and the environment.  In a poll conducted in London by LondonEats.com 35.6% of those asked indicated that they “would never eat GM altered food”, and 26.1% said they “prefer non-GM food”.  An article in the Guardian featured the story about the success of a London based organic food caterer and the potential of organic foods.

        On the other hand, in the U.S, GMOs are most prevalent and supported while organics are making dramatic in-roads.  North America has surpassed Europe as the largest market for organic products.  Organic foods are going from being a specialty item, available only in specialty stores, to being in mainstream stores.  Convenience stores like 7-Eleven and conventional supermarkets like Kroger Co., are offering more and more organic products.  Public schools as well as college cafeterias are featuring organic ingredients.   Restaurants all over the U.S are eliminating biotech ingredients and replacing them with organic foods.        This increase in organic consumption is an out-growth of a clear certification and labeling program to increase consumer awareness of the possible danger of food contamination with chemicals, antibiotics and GMOs.  Since there is no labeling for GM foods the average consumer is recognizing that the only sure way to eliminate consuming potentially dangerous foods is by looking for the certified organic label.  

        Overall, we see throughout the world a fear of science “playing God” with dire consequences.  More and more business, government and even science are not trusted to tell the truth.  People believe that there are special interest groups with their own agendas that have little regard for the safety of the public and the environment.  William Muir has tried to develop a model of environmental risk for GMOs.  He presents the problems involved and the need for such a model.  Weir says, “consumers and environmentalists remain wary of the safety of biotechnology in agriculture to alleviate concern and increase consumer confidence, more research needs to be done.  The first step in this process is to develop a risk assessment that is accepted by scientists.  If scientists cannot agree on a unified methodology for testing the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the public will reject transgenic technology on the basis of uncertainty.  Through a comprehensive, unbiased examination of risks and hazards associated with agricultural biotechnology, a methodology for testing can be developed.”

        GMFs need to be evaluated thoroughly and scientifically before they are introduced into our food supply.  Too many questions remain, all doubt of their safety has to be eliminated, and their efficacy and value proved.  Until this is done, no one will feel safe. A beginning is mandatory labeling of all GE products.  The public needs and wants this to happen.  If sales of GM products drop, that means that the consumer does not perceive a value in them.  Businesses have an obligation to their consumers, and this is to provide value, and not hide detrimental factors through imperfect information. Thus, if the buyer does not perceive any value to using that product, the product deserves to fail.  That is the nature of business.  Hiding facts or problems with a product is bad business.  Finally, the government has the right to protect society by passing laws that will benefit the majority of people.  By making labeling mandatory, those producers who do use genetically modified organisms, will be able to compete fairly with those organic farmers who label their products as well, leaving the choice to the consumer’s preferences.  

---