What we know -- and don't know -- about the safety of eating GMOs

As a conservationist first and foremost, I'm all in favor of agricultural advances that help stem the devastating impacts of farming and ranching on biodiversity and ecosystem services. We badly need to deploy new farming methods and crop strains that enable humanity to produce more food on less land, using much lower inputs of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

Importantly, some of the most intriguing approaches I've learned of, such as The Rodale Institute's 30-year farm system trial and The Land Institute's work toward perennial crop varieties, also boost the resilience of our agricultural system to climate change.

When it comes to genetically modified crops, however, my sense as a scientist is that we don't know enough about GMOs' long-term health or environmental impacts to know whether these things are really ready for prime time yet.

This piece by Grist's Tom Philpott sums up a bit of what worries me about GMO's:  

What we do know is that GMOs are not acutely toxic to eat. That is, we know that if you dine on a burger made from cows gorged on GM corn and soy, French fries cooked in oil from GM cottonseed, and soda laced with high-fructose syrup from GM corn, you're not likely to keel over in agony. Tens of millions of people do it every day. 

But what about more subtle, long-term effects -- problems that public-health professionals call "chronic"? Here we enter less certain territory. With our highly processed diets largely deficient in fruits and vegetables, Americans have high and rising rates of chronic diseases like obesity and heart disease. Meanwhile, food allergies, autism, and non-alcohol-related liver disease have rocketed. It's highly plausible that GMOs, which have existed in our diets for less than a generation, have emerged as another of many contributors to such long-term conditions. 

So GMOs could theoretically be unsafe to eat. What does science tell us about the matter? Unfortunately, not much. 

It seems that the body of research in this area lacks depth of credibility due to the intense secrecy of GMO makers. That is, the literature is dominated by findings of agricultural industry-funded scientists, and needs more contributions from independent scientists (who I'm sure would be glad to sign fairly worded non-disclosure agreements or "NDA's").

What is trickling out seems to indicate that there is "smoke" around this issue (and where there's smoke...):  

So where does all of this leave us? Obviously, in need of much more independent research. In April, a bit more trickled out from Quebec, Canada -- and again, the results are unsettling. The study, published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, focused on corn engineered to possess a trait from the bacteria Bt, which is toxic to a range of insects. So-called Bt corn is extremely common in the United States; according to the USDA, upwards of 60 percent of corn planted here has it. Since its introduction in the '90s, its maker, Monsanto, has insisted that Bt corn must be safe, because the toxin embedded in it cannot survive the human digestive system.   

The Quebec study (here's the abstract) casts serious doubt on that bedrock assumption. Researchers checked blood samples of 39 pregnant women and 30 non-pregnant women for the presence of the toxin. None were exposed directly to Bt, but all had conventional diets. The results: The Bt toxin showed up in 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their fetuses. It was also present in 69 percent of non-pregnant women in the study.   

So, 15 years after the introduction of GMOs, we know that they pose no threat of immediate, spectacular harm. That is, they won't kill us suddenly. Whether they're killing us slowly -- contributing to long-term, chronic maladies -- remains anyone's guess.

Well that certainly doesn't sound like a crop technology that is ready to be approved for our food supply, does it?  My wife is pregnant with our second daughter, and these kinds of findings indicate to me that our Food Safety regulatory system is dropping the ball in a big way here. Or at the very least is jumping the gun on GMO safety, likely due to intensive political pressures influenced by the Monsanto's of the world.

I hope, for the safety of our children and ourselves, that we aren't looking at a very expensive agricultural, health and environmental catastrophe in the making.

What are your thoughts on GMO safety? What's the best way to grow more food on less land, using lower inputs of synthetic chemicals and fertilizers?

Read more>>
...

Fall Course: The Ecology and Credibility of Green Products (aka: What's really 'Green'?!)

What's really 'Green'?

What does the latest science say about the real benefits -- to our environment, economy, health and quality of life -- of green products and services?

How are people and businesses improving their personal and financial health by using green products?

How can you know which 'green' products you can trust to provide such claimed benefits as:

• reduces emissions of the heat-trapping carbon pollution that causes climate change
• protects our natural heritage and its wondrous biological diversity
• reduces toxic pollution and waste
• protects our health and the safety of our children
• supports green jobs and our transition to a more secure clean energy economy
• reduces our dependence on oil and other dirty energy sources
• improves our national security

Find out the answers to these questions and more this fall at UC Berkeley Extension, where I'll be teaching a weekly evening course titled 'Green Purchasing for Sustainable Business Management".  It runs from September 13 - November 15.

Spanning multiple product categories, this course pulls together years of my research -- as both a conservation scientist and sustainability expert -- to help you and your company gain a foundational understanding in green purchasing.  The course description reads as follows:

A good understanding of the principles of green purchasing is important to limit the impact that businesses, governments and corporations have on natural resources,  ecosystems and human well-being. This course is intended to provide sustainable business enthusiasts with an important foundational overview of the environmental information underlying sustainable purchasing. You will learn how to access, understand and evaluate the information that you need for green procurement.   Evaluate business cases that illustrate how companies can boost profits and productivity by using and selling sustainable products.

Many problems with sustainable business reflect a need for managers to become better versed in the technical environmental information underlying sustainability.  Each week, you will explore a new aspect of green procurement and learn how to distinguish those products that credibly limit impacts on the environment – and people too.  You will become well versed in the environmental information underlying sustainable business, and learn how to distinguish between different green certifications and identify those that are credible.

Click here to sign up now.  Tell your friends and peers about this class (use the 'share' button below).  Thank you so much -- you're the best!
...

Energy Crops Impact Environmental Quality

A new review explores alternative approaches for providing the carbon-rich material used to create cellulosic ethanol.  While some have touted use of crop waste for conversion to fuels, this review touts important environmental benefits provided by crop residues, and suggests alternative crops for fuel production:

In the March-April 2010 issue of Agronomy Journal, published by the American Society of Agronomy, Dr. Humberto Blanco reviewed the impacts of crop residue removal, warm season grasses, and short-rotation woody crops on critical soil properties, carbon sequestration, and water quality as well as the performance of energy crops in marginal lands. The review found that crop residue removal from corn, wheat,and grain sorghumcan adversely impact soil and environmental quality. Removal of more than 50% of crop residue can have negative consequences for soil structure, reduce soil organic carbon sequestration, increase water erosion, and reduce nutrient cycling and crop production, particularly in erodible and sloping soils.

"Crop residue removal can make no-till soils a source rather than a sink of atmospheric carbon," says Blanco, even at rates lower than 50%. Residue removal at rates of less than 25% can cause loss of sediment in runoff relative to soils without residue removal. To avoid the negative impacts on soil, perhaps only a small fraction of residue might be available for removal. This small amount of crop residues is not economically feasible nor logistically possible. Blanco recomends developing other alternative biomass feedstock sources for cellulosic ethanol production.

An alternative to crop residue removal is growing warm season grasses and short-rotation woody crops as dedicated energy crops. These crops can provide a wide of range of ecosystems services over crop residue removal. Available data indicate that herbaceous and woody plants can improve soil characteristics, reduce soil water and wind erosion, filter pollutants in runoff, sequester soil organic carbon, reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases, and improve wildlife habitat and diversity.

Whereas crop residue removal reduces carbon concentration, dedicated energy crops can increase soil organic carbon concentration while providing biofuel feedstock. Because of their deep root systems, warm season grasses also promote long-term carbon sequestration in deeper soil profile unlike row crops.

I've been watching the development of biofuels for years now, and there always seems to end up being a problem with each candidate.  Hopefully we can find a solution sooner than later that is both effective and safe for helping wean us from our oil addiction.

Read more>>
...

New Book Touts "Shocking" Reasons to Eat Organic

A new book describes the many environmental, health and safety benefits of organic foods.  As reported on The Early Show:

Matt Bean, a senior editor of the magazine, spelled out many of those benefits on "The Early Show" Tuesday.

Although organic food is more expensive than conventional food, Bean says making organics a part of your diet can have a big impact on your health and that of your family.

From the book, Bean says, "We discovered ... some pretty shocking and convincing arguments" for going that route.

Health Benefits of Organic Foods:

• More Nutrients: Studies show that organic foods may have increased levels of nutrients like antioxidants than conventionally grown foods

• Fertility Health: Pesticides found in conventionally grown foods have been shown to reduce fertility

• Immune System Protection: The chemicals in non-organic foods may also harm your immune system, leaving you more susceptible to illness and some forms of cancer

• Hormones and weight gain: New research has shown that some agricultural chemicals could actually be making you fat by interfering with your hormone levels.

• Unknown effects of GMOs: Many people are concerned about genetically modified foods, especially since many of them have never been tested on humans. Organic foods are never genetically modified.

Given findings like this out there, there's also an element of 'peace of mind' that comes with eating organic -- especially when grown in our own garden (I'm proud of the food I grow, and it tastes great!) and purchased at local farmers' markets (supporting our local organic growers and green economy).

Read more>>
...

Is There Enough Food Out There for 9 Billion People

The New Republic reports on a paper last week from the esteemed journal, Science, proposing how humanity can feed 9 billion people in 2050:

A new paper published this week in Science, written by Britain's chief scientific adviser John Beddington along with nine other experts, outlines a way this could actually be done. The catch? Doing so would require "radical" changes to the current global food system. The paper's a great synthesis of a wide range of different food issues, and I'll just pull out the main ideas:

Boosting crop yields: If the supply of farmland is ultimately finite, then boosting yields is the only way we'll get more food.

Stop tossing out so much food: The study estimates that 30 percent to 40 percent of the world's food is thrown out each year. 

Fewer hamburgers: Can't imagine this one will go over well, but the authors do suggest that people will probably have to reduce their meat consumption slightly to feed nine billion people. This doesn't mean going vegetarian.

A slew of green technical stuff: Of course, all those other measures will only go so far. There are also some serious threats to the long-term sustainability of agriculture lurking out there. Global warming's a big one. But then also water shortages due to over-extraction. Soil degradation due to poor farming techniques. Loss of biodiversity due poor management. The fact that fisheries are being ravaged (so something like a cap-and-trade system for fish could help here). A lot of the fixes here are dry and technical, and they tend to get discussed as wonky enviro ideas that might be nice to do but aren't essential. Except that, as the Science study makes clear, they really are crucial—at least if all those nine billion people want enough to eat.

Not Food Crops and Farmland to Fuel Vehicles: It's probably going to be hard to find enough food for nine billion people if we're still diverting vast swaths of farmland for crop-based ethanol. (Though maybe by then we'll have moved on to algae fuels or electric cars or some other fancy technology.)

It's a fascinating, crucial topic -- one with that tie directly into humanity's other top crises: climate, biodiversity, fresh water.  We sure live in interesting times...

Read more>>
...

Bee Decline Linked to Falling Biodiversity

A new study provides evidence that bee decline is linked to falling plant diversity and a greater prevalence of agricultural monocultures:

Bees fed pollen from a range of plants showed signs of having a healthier immune system than those eating pollen from a single type, scientists found.

Writing in the journal Biology Letters, the French team says that bees need a fully functional immune system in order to sterilise food for the colony.

Other research has shown that bees and wild flowers are declining in step.

Fascinating -- and a further reminder that protecting biodiversity isn't just about distant rainforests and pretty furry animals.  It's very much about protecting human well-being -- including the viability of our food production systems.

Read more>>
...

Biodiversity to the Rescue: Voodoo Wasps Could Help Detoxify Agriculture -- and People

Uttering the words 'biological diversity' typically conjures up images of such natural wonders as Lemurs, Jaguars and Panda Bears.  However, Nature's Services provided by insects -- including pollination of our crops and predation of our crop pests -- are among the most valuable provided by any group of organisms.

This article in the London Independent details the critical services provided by a predator of crop pests, parasitic 'voodoo wasps'.  These wasps, the story goes, are being studied for their potential to replace the use of toxic pesticides in agricultural fields:

They are so small that most people have never even seen them, yet "voodoo wasps" are about to be recruited big time in the war on agricultural pests as part of the wider effort to boost food production in the 21st century.

The wasps are only 1 or 2 millimetres long fully-grown but they have an ability to paralyse and destroy other insects, including many of the most destructive crop pests, by delivering a zombie-inducing venom in their sting.

Now scientists believe they have made the breakthrough that will enable them to recruit vast armies of voodoo wasps to search and destroy farm pests on a scale that could boost crop yields without polluting the wider environment with insecticides.

I love the potential of this ecosystem services success story.  However, I sure hope that if scientists are genetically modifying these organisms to attack specific crop pests, they are being very very careful to make sure the genetically modified wasps don't end up becoming a new invasive species problem.

Read more>>

...

The Future of the Ecological Landscape

Living on Earth has a neat story -- featuring top experts like Jared Diamond -- about the future of the Ecological Landscape.

Says Diamond of whether we'll end up succeeding in our transition to a green economy or going the way of the Ancient Mayans and other failed societies:

Summing up, I'm not an optimist; I'm not a pessimist. I would describe myself as a cautious optimist, and by that I mean that the problems that we face are all problems that we are causing, and so if we decide to solve the problems, we can solve them.

I'm not worried about some asteroid that we can't stop crashing into the Earth – that would be a hopeless problem, an unsolvable problem. Instead, I'm concerned about what we people, ourselves, do with our water, and our forests, and our fish and our topsoil. We already know how to manage forests, and fish, and waters sustainably and we do it in some cases. All we have to do is do it in the other cases, as well, and we'll be sailing off into a happy future; my children will end up in a world worth living in.

We have the knowledge, but do we have the political willpower?

Read more>>
...

Ground Rules for a Constructive Debate About Food and Farming

The L.A. Times has a piece worth your while proposing some ways for us to have a more constructive debate about our (currently unsustainable) food production system.  Here are a couple of the highlighted points:

 * What's political is also personal. If you believe in something, you should be willing to make sacrifices to support it, even if it's expensive or inconvenient. Wailing about farmers who use pesticides and then balking at paying extra for organic produce is hypocritical because the yields in organic farming are almost always lower. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with doing the best you can whenever you can -- as long as you're willing to accept compromises from the other guy too.

* Finally, and most important: Beware the law of unintended consequences. Developing tasteless fruits and vegetables was not the goal of the last Green Revolution; it was a side effect of a system designed to eliminate hunger by providing plentiful, inexpensive food, but that also ended up rewarding quantity over quality. We should always keep in mind that when we're dreaming of a system that focuses on the reverse, we run the risk of creating something far worse than strawberries that bounce.

OK, I'll admit that when I see a little container of organic and local strawberries for $6, I breeze right by it.  The good news is that these days, it really doesn't take too much searching to find affordable organics.  Or even affordable local organics.

That said, the more we can convey the benefits of a sustainable food production system in terms that are immediately relevant to everyday moms, the better.  We need simple, concrete pictures and stories about how sustainably produced food is better for our kids, our health, our safety -- and at the same time, for the land and water ecosystems that support food production.

As we've reported here on this blog, a revolution in the way we produce and distribute our food is one of the great areas of promise in the coming decades for solutions that benefit both our environment and ourselves.

Read more>>
...

Growing Demand For Soybeans Threatens Amazon, Climate

A new piece from Lester Brown's Earth Policy Institute points to the global need to reduce demand for soybean production, which is a primary driver of Amazon deforestation (and thus a key driver of climate disruption).

Although the deforestation is occurring within Brazil, it is the worldwide growth in demand for meat, milk, and eggs that is driving it. Put simply, saving the Amazon rainforest now depends on curbing the growth in demand for soybeans by stabilizing population worldwide as soon as possible. And for the world’s affluent population, it means moving down the food chain, eating less meat and thus lessening the growth in demand for soybeans. With food, as with energy, achieving an acceptable balance between supply and demand now means curbing growth in demand rather than just expanding supply.

Of course, reducing food demand is healthier too...  Full disclosure: I am currently working to reduce my own personal food demand.  It's not only to keep healthy at age 37, but to keep my clothing fitting me.  The last thing I need in this economy is to have to go out and purchase new clothing for all the wrong reasons...

Read more>>
...

Behind Mass (Bee, Amphibian, Bat...) Die-Offs: Pesticides Lurk As Culprit

A pretty scary report on Yale Environment 360 details some of the latest findings on the links between pesticide use and die offs of bees, amphibians and bats:

University of Padua entomologist Vincenzo Girolami believes he may have discovered an unexpected mechanism by which  neonicotinoids (a class of nicotine-based pesticides) — despite their novel mode of application — do in fact kill bees. In the spring, neonicotinoid-coated seeds are planted using seeding machines, which kick up clouds of insecticide into the air. “The cloud is 20 meters wide, sometimes 50 meters, and the machines go up and down and up and down,” he says. “Bees that cross the fields, making a trip every ten minutes, have a high probability of encountering this cloud. If they make a trip every five minutes, it is certain that they will encounter this cloud.”

And the result could be immediately devastating. In as-yet-unpublished research, Girolami has found concentrations of insecticide in clouds above seeding machines 1,000 times the dose lethal to bees. In the spring, when the seed machines are working, says Girolami, “I think that 90 percent or more of deaths of bees is due to direct pesticide poisoning.”

Girolami has also found lethal levels of neonicotinoids in other, unexpected — and usually untested — places, such as the drops of liquid that treated crops secrete along their leaf margins, which bees and other insects drink. (The scientific community has yet to weigh in on Girolami’s new, still-to-be-published research, but Pettis, who has heard of the work, calls it “a good and plausible explanation.”)

Yeesh, I wonder what this stuff is doing to people over time...

I honestly haven't heard of a pesticide yet that's lived up to its claims of being perfectly safe.  I remember a few years ago when a new spray called "Transline" was supposed to help control the nasty noxious weed, yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and was supposed to only impact this weed.  Turned out to not be so good for legumes and other asters either -- we now know that it has a detrimental impact on many native wildflowers...

Read more>>
...

Down on the Farm: An Endless Cycle of Waste

The N.Y. Times has an interesting article about dairy and livestock operators' efforts to curtail pollution from animal waste, and turn it into useful fertilizer (thus stemming use of fossil fuel-produced nitrogen fertilizers).

Check out this mind-boggling number:

A typical lactating Holstein produces about 150 pounds of waste — by weight, about two-thirds wet feces, one-third urine — each day. Mr. Volleman has 3,000 lactating Holsteins and another 1,000 that are temporarily “dry.” Do the math: his Wildcat Dairy produces about 200 million pounds of manure every year.

Yuck!

The article goes on to explore various options for dealing with all this waste.  The described inefficiencies in agricultural systems just scream of opportunities to not only reduce pollution, but to cut costs, boost profits, and improve the public health.

Read more>>
...

Getting at the Roots of Unsustainable U.S. Agriculture Policy

Grist has an interesting summary of the ties between agriculture, food, ecosystem health and climate change -- talking about the problems in some of the USDA's current solutions.

Around one third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the way we produce, process, distribute, and consume the food we eat according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Meanwhile, farmers the world over will be the most affected by climate change, as higher carbon in the atmosphere and higher temperatures increase erratic weather patterns, pests, and disease occurrence, while decreasing water availability, disrupting relationships with pollinators and lowering yield and the efficacy of herbicides like glyphosate (aka Round-Up)—all detailed in a revealing new report from the USDA called The Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Ecosystems [pdf].

Among the author's critiques of current U.S. ag policy, there is some good commentary about the importance soil-building farming techniques that both boost resilience to climate change and increase the power of agriculture to store carbon (as well as to remain more fertile, thus reducing fertilizer costs).

Read more>>
...

Dutch Grower of Greenhouse Crops Pipes in CO2 from Neighboring Factory

The London Telegraph reports that a Dutch grower of greenhouse vegetables has partnered with a neighboring factory to pipe in hot water and CO2, helping cut his heating costs and boost crop production.

Neat idea!

Read more>>
...

Agriculture-Based Climate Change Solutions are Poverty and Hunger Solutions

Want another example of how the energy and land use solutions that are needed to solve climate change will improve peoples' lives in many other ways?

In the case of agricultural practices that increase soil storage of the heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), such practices are also hunger and poverty solutions, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).  The Triple Pundit reports:

“The overall challenge we are facing is to transform the technical mitigation potential of agriculture into reality,” said Alexander Müller, FAO assistant director-general.

He continued: “Many suitable technologies and farming practices to sequester carbon in smallholder agriculture already exist. These include practices used in conservation and organic agriculture, based on no/low tillage, utilizing residues for composting or mulching, use of perennial crops to cover soil, re-seeding or improving grazing management on grasslands and agro-forestry, which combines crops and trees.

“Nearly 90 percent of agriculture’s potential to reduce or remove emissions from the atmosphere comes from such practices. These practices are also known to have a positive impact on hunger and poverty reduction. However, barriers to adoption of these technologies and practices are a key challenge that needs to be overcome.”

Fortunately, major efforts are underway to step up use of these more sustainable farming techniques:

(last week), the FAO moved on a couple of climate change and food security fronts, including the launch of a multi-donor program to support sustainable, low-emission agriculture practices in developing nations.

FAO announced that Finland, the first country to participate in the program, will kick-in $3.9 million over the 2010-2011 period. The agency intends to approach other potential donors for further funding under the five-year initiative.

Read more>>

More from the Toronto Globe and Mail>>
...

Finding New Power for Tractors in Electricity

In the quest to transition away from oil dependence, small-scale farmers are converting their smaller tractors to run on electricity.

They like the small tractor's nimble ways around row crops. And with an electric motor instead of a gasoline engine bolted on the back, it runs cleanly, quietly and slowly with no belches of exhaust, few breakdowns and no direct consumption of fossil fuel.

Jagger still plugs into the grid back at the barn, but some farmers are setting up photovoltaic panels in the fields or on the tractors to draw power from the same source that grows their vegetables: the rays of the sun.

If only the U.S. Congress could catch this feverish spirit of innovation that's spreading around the world!

Read more>>
...

Future of Farming May Be Urban High Rises

Among the sustainable food production solutions that I am watching with some intrigue is the rise in talk of vertical farming.

Could urban buildings really provide enough food to feed cities, you might wonder?  Well, I wonder the same.

The benefits of these farms certainly sound enticing:

Moving farms off land and into urban buildings offers a solution to land and water scarcity and a really impressive swath of other natural, health, economic and political challenges:

• Produces crops year-round; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more,  depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres)
• Avoids weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests
• Grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers
• Virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water
• Returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services
• Greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface
• Converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of evapotranspiration
• Adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals
• Dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.)
• Converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers
• Creates sustainable environments for urban centers
• Creates new employment opportunities
• We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on earth
• May prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps
• Offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical Least Developing Countries (LDC).  If this should prove to be the case, then vertical farms may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.
• Could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water and land for agriculture

 As soon as one of these opens up, you can be sure that we'll blog about it!

Read more>>
...

Can Ecological Agriculture Feed 9 Billion People?

I just finished reading the latest article I've come across about converting to a more ecologically-friendly agriculture.

It's good stuff -- reminding us of the challenges we face, and of the benefits of sustainable agriculture:

(S)ustainable agroecosystems...have positive side-effects, helping to enhance local environments, strengthen communities, and develop human capacities. Examples of positive side-effects recently recorded in various developing countries include:

• Improvements to the ecosystem, including increased water retention in soils, improvements in water table (with more and cleaner drinking water in the dry season), reduced soil erosion combined with more organic matter in soils, leading to more carbon sequestration, healthier soils, greater productivity, and increased agrobiodiversity;
• Improvements to communities, including more and stronger social organizations at the local level, new rules and norms for managing collective natural resources, and better connectedness to external policy institutions;
• Improvements to human potential, including more local capacity to experiment and solve problems, reduced incidence of malaria in rice-fish zones, increased self-esteem in formerly marginalized groups, increased status of women, better child health and nutrition, and reversed migration and more local employment.

The article then details key remaining areas of uncertainty, as well as the complex psychological factors involved in motivating farmers to make significant changes to their ways of farming:
 

We do not yet know for sure whether a transition toward sustainable agriculture, delivering greater benefits at the scale occurring in these projects, will result in enough food to meet the current food needs in developing countries, let alone the future needs after continued population growth and adoption of more urban and meat-rich diets. But what we are seeing is highly promising, especially for the poorest. There is also scope for additional confidence, as evidence indicates that productivity can grow over time if the farm ecosystem is enhanced, communities are strengthened and organized toward positive goals, and human knowledge, nutrition, and health are improved.

One problem is that we know much less about these resource-conserving technologies than we do about the use of external inputs in modernized, more industrial agricultural systems. (Most of the agricultural research in developed countries has been focused on products used for input-intensive systems such as fertilizers, pesticides, new genetics, and new machinery — products that could be sold to farmers.) It is clear that the process by which farmers learn about technology alternatives is crucial. If farmers are forced or coerced, then they may only adopt for a limited period. But if the process is participatory and enhances farmers’ ecological literacy of their farms and resources, then the foundation for redesign and continuous innovation is laid.

Regrettably, successes are still in the minority. Time is short, and the challenge is enormous. This change to agricultural sustainability clearly benefits poor people and environments in developing countries. People involved in these projects have more food, are better organized, are able to access external services and power structures, and have more choices in their lives. But change may also provoke secondary problems. For example, building a road near a forest can help farmers reach markets to sell their produce, but also aids illegal timber extraction. Equally, short-term social conflict may be necessary for overcoming inequitable land ownership, so as to produce better welfare outcomes for the majority.

So where do we stand, and what does this author see as next steps?

At this time we are neither feeding all the 6.7 billion people in the world nor — with some notable exceptions — conducting agriculture in an environmentally sound way. It may be possible to feed the estimated 9 billion people living on earth by mid-century. However, this will take a massive and multifaceted effort that may include changing the way animals are raised (not feeding ruminants food that could be used for human consumption) and giving up the ill-conceived use of cereals and other foods for conversion to transport fuels. In addition, support is needed for the development of participatory groups of farmers that can try out a variety of practices and learn from each other as well as technicians as they explore new techniques that will enhance sustainability.

I'm sure I'll get back to this one as a reference for future writings...

Read the full article>>

More on this question from Grist>>
...

Agriculture and Global Warming: Making it Better, Making it Worse

Did you know that agriculture contributes about 20% of America's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases that cause global warming?  For the entire planet, agriculture contributes about 12% of these emissions.

How are the impacts of our food, fiber and biofuel production systems so severe, and what are some ways that we can revolutionize our agricultural practices to turn them from a source of carbon emissions to a sink?

Treehugger explores these questions:

If we consider some of the embodied energy required for industrial ag, it gets worse. According to Will Allen, green farmer extraordinaire, including all the "manufacture and use of pesticides and fertilizers, fuel and oil for tractors, equipment, trucking and shipping, electricity for lighting, cooling, and heating, and emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other green house gases" bumps the impact up to between 25 and 30 percent of the U.S.'s collective carbon footprint. That's a big jump.

(However), Organic agriculture can remove from the air and sequester 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per year. The Rodale Institute study that found that staggering number also found that, when properly executed, organic agriculture does not compromise yield. As a matter of fact, in drought years, it increases yield, since the additional carbon stored in soil helps it to hold more water. In wet years, the additional organic matter in the soil wicks water away from plant roots, limiting erosion and keeping plants in place. Both of those attributes will also benefit organic ag's ability to adapt to the higher highs (and lower lows) of climate change.

Obviously, there are some very powerful economic interests -- the multinational corporations who make all the fertilizers, pesticides and even crop types -- who are going to try to fight these types of positive changes tooth and nail.

That's why it's up to people like you and me to vote with our everyday choices (the more of us choose organic, the more land will need to be farmed organic to meet our demand), and contact our state and federal decision-makers and demand change -- for the earth and for ourselves.  You can reach your Congressional representatives at 202-224-3121.

Read more>>
...

Biotech Crops Cause Big Jump in Pesticide Use

The law of unintended consequences is at work in the world of genetically modified crops, reports Reuters:

The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups.

The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.

The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).

Um, shouldn't these things be thought out BEFORE releasing the genetically modified crops into the marketplace -- so that we can be sure that stuff like this doesn't happen?  Oops...

There is a bit of good news:

The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996.

But the big picture remains:

Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use.

The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as "Roundup Ready" for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.

With farmers screaming bloody murder about how much climate legislation is going to drive them out of business by raising their fuel costs, you'd think they'd be a little bit more efficient with their herbicide use...

We are all in favor of food supply solutions that help reduce the amount of land, water, fertilizers and pesticides that need to be used in agriculture.  But for the lord's sake, somebody should have seen this toxic mess of a problem coming and taken steps to prevent it.

Read more>>
...