I suppose I am a bit late to the punch on this one, but a friend just alerted me to this apparently infamous article by respected agriculturalist Robert Paarlberg. The article depicts organic agriculture as merely a preoccupation of the privileged class, and argues chemical-based agriculture is the only way to feed the growing world population.
In response, I found this article, which mostly dismisses Paarlberg's claims and argues organic agriculture can in fact feed the world more effectively than chemical-based agriculture. The article has the added bonus of referencing one of my favorite books in the title.
Of course, I tend to agree with the second article, both from a normative standpoint and because Paarlberg's article appears to ignore the significant support provided to chemical-based agriculture by government subsidies and low-priced fossil fuels, among other things. Paarlberg's article also diminishes the importance of evaluating the negative externalities generated by chemical-based agriculture, such as its environmental and long-term nutritional consequences.
However, it is an interesting debate, and if anyone has anything to add I would be interested in hearing it.
Not to mention horribles like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html?ref=fb&src=sp
ReplyDelete