Michael Pollan (left) and Tom Philpott talk food.Celebrated food and ag author Michael Pollan debunked some myths about organic agriculture Tuesday night at a Grist event in San Francisco, in a conversation with Grist food writer Tom Philpott and the audience.
In response to a question about whether we can really feed the world without industrialized ag (ah yes, a perennial), Pollan pointed out that we’re not feeding the world with it now. He said we wouldn’t be doing developing nations a favor by exporting a fossil fuel–dependent ag system to them when it’s clear that fossil fuels are only going to become more scarce and expensive. And overproducing government-subsidized food in the U.S. is certainly not the way to solve world hunger—it just exacerbates it by putting small-scale farmers in developing countries out of business. Give people in the developing world the tools to do sophisticated organic ag and it will help solve many problems, including undocumented immigration, Pollan argues.
And yes, sophisticated organic ag does exist. Pollan disputed the idea that organic techniques are anti-technology. Philpott agreed, pointing out that renowned farmers Joel Salatin and Will Allen use advanced technology to produce organic food—it’s just not the type of technology that Big Ag promotes and profits from.
Asked what the Obama administration is thinking on ag—sometimes veering in the direction of progressive change, other times whipping back toward the agrichemical status quo, as Philpott puts it—Pollan said the admin appears to be playing both sides of the street. Pollan related an anecdote in which the president implied that there needs to be a popular political movement for sustainable food before he can make big change—and suggested to his wife that this might be her issue.
Where, asked Pollan, are the members of Congress who will take up this issue as their own? For now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is letting Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and other Big Ag–oriented reps run the show on food and ag policy. The recent farm-bill fight was a loss, but during the debate the sustainable food movement started to get its message heard in D.C. and rattle some of the vested interests. The next fight on Capitol Hill will be over the school lunch program reauthorization, Pollan said.
Though the sustainable food movement seems to be thriving in oases like the Bay Area, Philpott pointed out that still only 3 to 4 percent of food consumed in the U.S. is organic or local. How do we grow that number and include more people? Pollan said the movement, like many social movements, was started by elites, but is spreading to other parts of society. He sees encouraging signs in the heartland and among young people. But if in 20 years people are still talking about this as an elitist movement, we’ll know we really screwed up.
Grist offers a big thanks to Pollan, host Tony Conrad and the rest of our host committee, our caterer Dominique Salomon (the food was scrumptious!), and everyone who attended and helped to make the evening a success. Let’s keep the conversation rolling.
Myth congeniality
Pollan shoots down organic myths at Grist event 25
-
Posted 11:59 AM on 7 Oct 2009
by Lisa Hymas -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Lisa Hymas is Grist’s senior editor. You can follow her on Twitter.
Related Stories
Ecological farms: the only real way to feed an Increasingly hungry world
No to Obama’s agrichemical industry man, yes to Bed-Stuy Farm
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 7:47 pm
07 Oct 2009
Permalink
mihan Posted 10:13 am
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 9:47 pm
07 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:18 pm
07 Oct 2009
Thanks for that! It's about time media noticed that organic ag can be industrial.
The big challenge for organic versus chemical ag is industrial scale grain production. Can the huge quantities of grain produced using mega tractors and combines and chemicals still be produced organically?
The planting and harvesting stages are done with mega machinery. The selection for the particular monocrop over weeds and pests is done chemically. Watering is done with mega irrigation equipment.
I would propose that the planting and harvesting and soil ammendment with biodigested waste stream biomass can still be done with mega tractors and combines, maybe electrified versions, but the selection of the crop plant over weeds and pests, and organic fertilization, and pinpoint water injection irrigation could be done robotically. Weeding and feeding the crop night and day.
Monocroping could shift to strip crop rotation. And any space between crop plants could be planted by the robots with nitrogen fixing, pest repelling, and other beneficial plants. No more superweed problems either, any weed would yeild to a weed wacker on a robot.
Would production be even higher in the long run? I think so, as organic soil started building and soil ecosystems were restored. Instead of monocrops, that easily become vulnerable to widespread weather enabled crop diseases, a more varying genetic stock can protect farm finances.
Vegetable crop organic farming could go robotic too, in fact it might be a better place to start.
What would trading the economics of chemical ag over head for clean energy producing biodigested fertilizer applied robotically result in? A better deal for farmers and consumers is my guess.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 6:49 am
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:58 am
08 Oct 2009
And without subsidies, farmers would lose money with chemical ag, am I right? It already is too costly. Unless of course you are a commie and believe that government ought to redistribute wealth to chemical ag farmers from the rest of US.
The pioneering efforts here in Wisconsin, that university extension programs are reaching out to, involve rotational grazing dairy farms and biodigestion of farm waste for energy production and organic fertilizer.
If we look at a financial model where farmers get payed for supplying wind, solar, and biogas energy, instead of getting subsidies to prop up the chemical farming industry, actual capitalist market based farming might be possible. Right now without the dole, only organic farmers would stay in business. Why? Because organic farmers don't get subsidies.
Given universtiy extension programs that coordinate with organic farmers and help engage engineering departments in the creation of robotic organic ag and renewable energy from farming, and without the over head of chemical ag, maybe farming could return to a capitalist model. Or do you like a commie food supply? Hehey.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 10:10 am
08 Oct 2009
I am confused where you make the correlation between subsities and propping up the chemical industry. Also not sure wher you come up with the "commie" mentions. Not sure how you think there will be, or is a redistribution of wealth from the rest of the US to, as you say chemical farmer.
I am afraid that robotics, and more regulation will only force growers, organic and other ag, to become larger to remain competative. That is unless, you are able to find a niche market that is economical.
Permalink
dniall Posted 5:02 pm
13 Oct 2009
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 6:51 am
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
Javaman Posted 8:03 am
08 Oct 2009
what big ag corps have shown us is: they can produce huge quantities of food, but that same food is so low in nutrition that anyone who eats it, will of course, be malnourished.
we as a world eat too much crap, hollow calories and just junk in general. The rate of obesity in the world can be directly correlated to the level of nutritious content in the foods that we eat.
More over, the price of junk is much more affordable to the poor than the price of good nutritious food.
Stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, use that money to subsidize the alt energy sector you will see the price of organics aka nutritious food, come down. Subsidize the farmer and not the crop. If that is done, the agra-corps of the world will have much less power and much less say in determining what we eat and the way we get it.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 9:24 am
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
bigleap Posted 11:26 am
08 Oct 2009
Many assume in the post-modern era that science has progressed enough to study problems conclusively. As a scientist I honestly will tell you that we have come a long way from our origins but improvements on techniques and instrumentation keep changing our outlook on previously accepted ideas even ones that were borne in this decade. And in many instances time is the main factor. That is one of the reasons I take a more conservative stance to the ideas of usage of chemical treatments. If there is any slight indication of harmful affects caused by said treatments, then I hold to the cliche "it is better safe than sorry" if you catch my drift.
You a great point about the consumer. However, many are either misinformed or simply do not care. The negligence of the monsanto's of the ag chemical companies have pushed to drown out the cry for more information. For example, recently in some states citizens have called for foods to be labeled if they were genetically engineered and in some cases the chemicals used during their growth. In nearly all but a few the chemical companies and ag associations have lobbied the legislators at the state and federal level to oppose the idea... and have won.
For the ones who do not care... sometimes they say they do not care until they know what the truth is. And some simply do not care and will not care. But those who really "do not care" will not care if you change what they can buy from the status quo to a more sustainable ag, if the cost is not significantly increased.
After growing up on a small farm until I went off to college, I kind of took fresh food for granted. Then reality set in when I had to alot (we had some back home but not much) of overly processed foods at college. After being disgusted by the lack of taste due to the premature harvest, I wanted to go back to the fresh foods but the cost was a deterrent (dorm life is not conducive to gardening). Now that I am a grad student I try to be more picky about what and where I buy foods... not just produce.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 12:37 pm
09 Oct 2009
Nitrates anyone?
Here is a response from the Soil Association to the study.
http://www.soilassociation.org/News/NewsItem/tabid/91/smid/463/ArticleID/97/reftab/57/t/Soil-Association-response-to-the-Food-Standards-Agency-s-Organic-Review/Default.aspx
Here are some other studies that arrived at a much different conclusion.
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/taste/13560666.html
Organic agriculture has the distinct advantage of being sustainable since it builds soil while industrial ag depletes soil.
But what is most important from a nutritional aspect is to eat fresh, vine ripened, and minimally processed food.
Permalink
Carroll Posted 11:12 am
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 11:59 am
08 Oct 2009
As a dairy producer, I would be ashamed of such a product.
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 2:17 pm
08 Oct 2009
I am so thankful to be able to buy milk directly from the dairy farmer up the hill!
Permalink
Truly Scrumptious Posted 8:40 am
13 Oct 2009
Are you really that unfamiliar with aseptic packaging? It's not weird, or a bad idea. In Europe, almost all milk is in aseptic boxes, and the milk tastes great.
If it had a Dec 09 expiry, perhaps it was actually getting old. Aseptic packaging usually gives at least 6 months of stability, even beyond the expiration, but maybe the box had been compromised. And please tell me the teacher refrigerated it before it was opened - what kid would find warm milk appealing?
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 10:22 am
13 Oct 2009
I drink unpasteurized, unhomogenized milk now that I live in Vermont, but even compared to the fresh milk you buy in the grocery store, UHT milk was awful.
In FoodProvider's case, I think it's safe to say that if it was consumed more than two months before the expiration date, it was stable - it just tasted really, really bad.
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 4:14 pm
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 9:57 pm
09 Oct 2009
However, I do know that until the wealthy adopt a particular trend, we ordinary folk will not do so. We, after all, are seeking to become part of the elite. When there are composting toilets on Park Avenue, they will be something we all seek to own. So it's a good thing that alternative ag is an elitist thing. It's already happening. Walmart's primary customers would hardly be called elite.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 8:26 am
09 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:20 am
09 Oct 2009
The "commie" reference is to all the propaganda spouted from the right on how government "interference" is unamerican. The ag subsidy programs, without which chemical ag farmers would all go out of business, surely constitutes a government made market in ag commodities. There is no "free" market.
So tell me why the vast majority of farmers, who vote conservatively time after time, seem to love government running their business?
Organic farmers getting subsidies targeted to chemical ag? There's another article topic. I've never heard of such an anti-american conspiracy before!! Is ACORN involved? Hehehey.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 10:45 am
09 Oct 2009
And I thought that "commie" meant that you wanted the gov't to run your life, and your business. I guess this just proves that anything can be twisted to mean what you want it too.
Tell me please what farm subsidies are there that are targeted towards chemical ag. I haven't heard of any accept for in here.
I challange you to find many if any farmer (or any other business owner)that would say they love the gov't, or anybody running their business.
Permalink
Albionwood Posted 10:42 am
13 Oct 2009
Nobody says they love the govt running their business - but they sure love cashing those govt checks. Farm/food subsidies are a form of governmental intervention in the market, whether the money is going to ADM or AFDC. It's not just hypocritical, it's corrupt, when the recipients of those checks turn around and write checks to election campaigns.
I strongly disagree with DrX about the ag subsidies keeping chemical ag in business. The subsidies are distorting the market, but they aren't responsible for the entire system of chemical agriculture. If the subsidies were eliminated there would be a lot of painful adjustments in the ag business; one hell of a lot less corn would probably be planted. (Maybe Frito-Lay and other cheap-corn derivative producers would go out of business!) But chemicals are still going to be cheaper and easier ways to combat weeds, insects, and diseases, unless the true total cost of such chemical use falls on the users. And I don't see that happening, because so many of those costs aren't up front - they only appear many years later - which makes it impossible to assess a value.
Permalink