Should the United States Deindustrialize
its Food Supply?
by
Jacob Weber
November 6, 2012
Environment and Politics
Word Count: 2341
1
While the term “organic farming” may seem very modern, its origins actually lie
with the origins of farming itself. Organic farming is basically farming without the use of
petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, which was the only way farming was done up
until post World War II. Advances in technology made during the war that were applied
to agriculture led to serious economic advantages, along with many environmental and
health problems. Currently, the main method of agricultural farming in the United States
involves large farms that employ such advanced technology to create larger yields with
cheaper costs than farms previously ever could. However, the environmental and health
impacts of such methods of farming have led many farmers to turn to what today is called
“organic farming.” Organic farming strives to “…utilize those advances that consistently
yield benefits…while discarding those methods that have led to negative impacts on
society and the environment, such as pesticide pollution and insect pest resistance.
Instead of using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, [they]… rely on biological, cultural
and physical methods to limit pest expansion and increase populations of beneficial
insects on their farm” (Organic Agriculture – History). When it comes to the issue of
deindustrializing the United States’ food supply and converting it to organic agriculture,
there are nearly unlimited stakeholders, including but not limited to: the American public,
taxpayers, oil and gas companies, farmers, large agriculture corporations like Monsanto
and Tyson, pesticide and fertilizer companies, people living downstream of farms, and
civilians and farmers around the world. Additionally, talk about organic agriculture
brings up many items for debate, including: could organic agriculture actually feed the
U.S.? Will research into more sustainable agriculture lead to fewer environmental
impacts from industrial farming? Is industrial farming of animals morally wrong? Will
2
organic farming result in higher food prices in the U.S.? Will organic farming increase
hunger in countries reliant on food imports? Can farmers actually make a living being
organic? However, the overarching question that combines all of these sub issues is
whether or not the United States should deindustrialize its food supply?
Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? is a very credible, informative article by
Brian Halweil, a senior researcher at the WorldWatch Institute: Vision for a Sustainable
world, that presents a compelling argument in favor of organic agriculture. Halweil starts
his argument with the idea that organic agriculture can utilize many technologies while
having a much lower impact on the environment than current industrial agriculture. He
first shows evidence to refute the argument that organic agriculture would not be able to
meet the crop yields the U.S. requires. While an often-cited argument says that organic
farming would only produce one third to one half of conventional yields, multiple studies
prove otherwise. Bill Liebhardt, an agricultural scientist at the University of California –
Davis reviewed “…154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops grown on rainfed and irrigated land in the United States…[and] found that organic corn yields were 94
percent of conventional yields, organic wheat yields were 97 percent, and organic
soybean yields were 94 percent. Organic tomatoes showed no yield difference” (Can
Organic Farming Feed Us All?). A far more interesting result is found in developing
countries. A seven-year study by the University of Essex by researchers Jules Pretty and
Rachel Hine showed “… [in the] Maikaal District in central India…1,000 farmers
cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili, and soy were
as much as 20 percent higher on the organic farms than on nearby conventionally
managed ones” (Can Organic Farming Feed Us All). Next, Halweil turns to support the
3
idea that organic farming can supply more than enough food to meet current the needs of
the current world population. He points to a study by the University of Michigan, that
compiled data to come up with yield ratios for the developed and developing world. They
then ran two tests: the first applied the lowest yields from the developed world to every
farm in the world, and the second applied the lowest yields for each nation to all of that
nation’s farms. The study found that “The first model yielded 2,641 kilocalories…per
person per day, just under the world's current production of 2,786 calories but
significantly higher than the average caloric requirement for a healthy person of between
2,200 and 2,500. The second model yielded 4,381 calories per person per day, 75 percent
greater than current availability-and a quantity that could theoretically sustain a much
larger human population than is currently supported on the world's farmland” (Can
Organic Farming Feed Us All?) With results like these, one must wonder why organic
farming isn’t embraced around the world already. Halweil also reports the other
numerous benefits of organic farming. Environmentally, organic farming supports more
biodiversity and species growth than conventional farming, allowing the natural flora and
fauna to thrive. Additionally, organic produce contains nearly zero pesticide residues and
never contains growth hormones or antibiotics. And socially, organic farming relies on
much lower cost inputs for production, allowing many smaller farms to flourish
compared to what they would have if they farmed conventionally. For a long-term
solution, Halweil supports a “middle ground” between organic and conventional farming.
These farms use many of the ideas and conventions of organic with a small fraction of the
chemicals from conventional. Roland Bunch, of the Association of Consultants for a
Sustainable, Ecological, and People-Centered Agriculture, reports that “…these systems
4
can immediately produce two or three times what smallholder farmers are presently
producing…[and] it is attractive to smallholder farmers because it is less costly per unit
produced” (Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?) Although many do not support organic
agriculture, with promising evidence like this, Halweil asks: “…why not…try it out?”
(Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?)
Brian Halweil’s argument in favor of deindustrializing the food supply of the U.S.
to make it more based on organic farming is very compelling with much evidence to
support his claims. Halweil does a good job identifying some of the reasons why people
do not support organic agriculture, including it not being able to produce high enough
yields and it not having positive economic benefits for the farmers. All of his data is cited
with very credible sources such as the University of California – Davis and the University
of Michigan, and backs up his points very well. However, Halweil lacked one crucial
component: information and opinions from actual farmers. The argument about organic
farming needs to involve those directly involved (the farmers) or it loses credibility.
Halweil can cite as many sources as he wants, but without the opinion of a farmer,
organic or conventional, his article loses a lot of credibility.
The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals, an article by Blake
Hurst on the online version of America Magazine, proposes the opposing view on
deindustrializing the food supply of the U.S. Hurst is a farmer, and thus gives very
informative, compelling support for his view on conventional farming. Hurst starts by
giving some general information about conventional farming. Most of it is done by
family farms, which have lived and grown on the land for generations. In addition, the
supposed harm that conventional farming does on the environment doesn’t exist in the
5
epic proportions touted by organic farming supporters. Hurts writes, “The biggest
environmental harm I have done as a farmer is the topsoil (and nutrients) I used to send
down the Missouri River to the Gulf of Mexico before we began to practice no-till
farming, made possible only by the use of herbicides. The combination of herbicides and
genetically modified seed has made my farm more sustainable, not less, and actually
reduces the pollution I send down the river” (The Omnivore’s Delusion). He also points
out how cheaper food is better for the economy and the world. The biggest cause of
human hunger worldwide is the rise of food prices, and industrial farming is the only way
to keep these prices down and save lives. Next, Hurst challenges the idea that pen-raising
animals is an immoral practice and must be stopped. Farming has always been a dirty
practice, and it still is today. Until people stop wanting to eat meat, animals will always
have to be farmed. Hurst points to a farmer, Lynn Niemann, who lived near his family’s
farm in 1956. Niemann basically pioneered the idea of “free-range” with his free-range
turkey farm. Without shelter, the turkeys were “free” to be eaten by predators, and even
wiped out by storms. Hurst writes, “It seems that turkeys, at least young ones, are not
smart enough to come in out of the rain, and will stand outside in a downpour, with beaks
open and eyes skyward, until they drown. One night Niemann lost 4,000 turkeys to
drowning, along with his dream, and his farm” (The Omnivore’s Delusion). Today shed
raised turkeys roam in a protected shed. They do walk around in their own waste, which
does not seem to disgust the birds, but does disgust the opponents of conventional
farming. However, these turkeys in reality are much better off than free-range ones, as
“Protected from the weather and predators, today's turkeys may not be aware that they are
a part of a morally reprehensible system” (The Omnivore’s Delusion). Hurst gives an
6
example as to how hogs raised in pens are actually a necessity for the growth of the
animals. In the large pens that organic advocates would have conventional farmers use,
where “the sow could turn around, lie down, and presumably act in a natural way” (The
Omnivore’s Delusion), which includes crushing her piglets to death, and even eating her
newborns. And on top of all that, free-range chickens and hogs would increase the price
of meat, something the current economy, as well as food-importing nations of the world,
cannot handle. Hurst finally challenges the idea that conventional farmers should plant
more cover crops, and also have household made compost shipped to them, free of
charge. Planting cover crops is better for soil health, but also creates an insect breeding
ground, which then requires insecticides to eliminate. And shipping compost would
require “7,500 trucks traveling from New York City to our small county here in the
Midwest, delivering compost. Five million truckloads to fertilize the country's corn crop.
Now, that would be a carbon footprint!” (The Omnivore’s Delusion). With more research
and investment in environmentally safe herbicides and genetically altered crops for better
production, conventional farming can remain a cheaper way of farming than organic
agriculture, one that will continue to protect the land, air, and water around the farm.
The article The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals by Blake
Hurst presents a very engaging, persuasive argument in favor of continuing to use
conventional agriculture in the United States. As a farmer, Hurst immediately creates a
sense of credibility for the reader. He gives a great introductory story, about hearing an
organic advocate on the seat behind him in a plane, bashing what Hurst does for a living.
Hurst’s article succeeds where many others like it fail. It goes into very specific detail
about certain aspects of conventional farming vs. organic farming in a very down to earth
7
way that the reader can understand. Furthermore, Hurst makes sure to present an
argument by organic farmers, and gives his reasons as to why it is not true. The only
thing that his article could have used would be more cited sources and more statistics. But
overall, Hurt’s article persuades the reader exactly as it intends to do.
Sarah DeWeerdt, an author for the WorldWatch Institute: Vision for a Sustainable
World, expresses her opinion of locally grown food in her article Is Local Food Better?
DeWeerdt discusses the distance certain foods go to reach the consumers, citing a statistic
from Iowa State University that “the most frequently cited statistic is that food travels
1,500 miles on average from farm to consumer” (Is Local Food Better?). In contrast to
this, locally grown food traveled on average only 44.6 miles to Iowa markets, a large
difference. A common definition for the term “local food” is food that only travels within
a 100-mile radius from the farm to the consumer, much lower than the average 1,500
miles Iowa. This not only lowers carbon emissions from the lowered travel distance, but
also from the production and distribution of chemicals, pesticides, and growth hormones.
Overall, DeWeerdt advocates further growth of organic farming and consumers
purchasing local food, but offers the realization that such a solution is not perfect. She
offers a number of interesting scenarios that could change the future of organic faming as
well, including: “…what if a greater investment in rail infrastructure helped to reverse the
trend toward transporting more food by inefficient semi-truck? What if fuel economy
standards were increased for the truck fleet that moves our food? … what if a carbonpricing system incorporated some of the environmental costs of agriculture that are
currently externalized?” (Is Local Food Better?). While locally grown organic food
8
seems like a good solution to conventional agriculture, the true solution will be a global
one.
Personally, I would have to side with Brian Halweil of the WorldWatch Institute,
in his belief that organic farming is the sustainable future of agriculture in the United
States. I grew up in a farming region, and have several friends whose families own farms.
I know what happens on farms, how many chemicals are used, and how much
environmental harm is done. On certain fields near my home, a small plane flies around
every week in the late summer spraying pesticides on the food that in a few weeks will be
at the farmers’ market. Over time, the water in the ditches around the fields turns a
greenish-black, and any of the turtles or muskrats that you used to see swimming around
in them no longer do. With what I have seen and read, including Brian Halweil’s article
Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?, I support the growth and continuance of organic
agriculture, especially that which is locally grown. A sustainable way of farming cannot
involve toxic chemical and growth hormones being pumped into our animals and plants,
and then having that chemical laced food shipped thousands of miles to grocery stores.
My view of sustainable agriculture involves locally grown organic produce, where you
can personally know the people who grow your food. Maybe with better education on
where our food comes from and how it is grown, more people will understand that our
current way of farming in this nation is not sustainable for the future.
9
Works Cited
DeWeerdt, Sarah. "Is Local Food Better?" Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch Institute:
Vision for a Sustainable World, 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6064>.
Halweil, Brian. "Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?" Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch
Institute: Vision for a Sustainable World, 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060>.
Hurst, Blake. "The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals." The American
Online. The American Enterprise Institute, 30 July 2009. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-theagri-intellectuals/>.
"Organic Agriculture - History." Iowa State University - Organic Agriculture. Iowa State
University, 18 Nov. 2011. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
<http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/history.html>.
10