Jon
Entine is the founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, which I have written
about before. Despite being called by disgruntled environmentalists a shill for
Big Ag, his site presents balanced science-based arguments. In that sense, he
does promote intensive agriculture as the best method, but the site also
acknowledges the importance of organic agriculture and things like emissions
reduction, pesticide reduction, fertilizer reduction, and environmental impact
reduction as well.
Entine first notes that there
is already an impending food crisis, noting that “food-exporting,
agriculturally rich regions have little unused land to sow, and China, India,
and Russia are in no position to significantly increase exports.” As the
global population continues to increase, this impending crisis could become
more acute. While exploitable land remains in Africa and South Asia, there are
other issues that make its potential efficient exploitation difficult. The U.S.
food production model, however, has been quite successful, in part due to its
soil fertility.
“With the help of genetic innovation and precision
agriculture on its extensive and fertile farmland, the United States has become
the world’s most efficient producer of food. But its farming practices are not
easily replicated in parts of the world where water is scarce, desertification
is escalating, insect swarms are common, and monsoons are on the increase.”
He mentions the Cerrado and
Gran Chico tropical savannahs of South America, once also thought to be
infertile and challenging to produce food, as overcoming those difficulties and
succeeding.
“South America seemed as agriculturally hopeless then as
most of Africa and Asia appears today. Sixty years later, Paraguay, Bolivia,
Argentina, and Colombia are major food exporters, and Brazil has evolved into
an agricultural superpower, feeding around 1.2 billion people globally.”
Intensive agriculture
utilizes genetically modified (GM) crops and synthetic chemicals to grow more
food on less land. However, many oppose intensive agriculture, saying it leads
to soil degradation, water scarcity, and loss of biodiversity. While there is
some truth to that, those problems can be mitigated and reduced. He describes
them as necessary trade-offs. Even as yields continue to increase, pesticide
and fertilizer use continue to drop in intensive agriculture.
The challenge, he says, is
developing more marginal land without degrading it. He rephrases the argument
of organic (rebranded as agroecology) vs. conventional farming, noting that:
“Both have advantages, limitations, and environmental
trade-offs. Are these visions diametrically opposed, foreclosing any chance of
cooperation?”
The answer is surely no. A
disadvantage of organic agriculture is that it still relies on tilling, which
has several undesirable effects.
“Conventional farming can produce far more food per
acre—it’s land-sparing. But organic advocates say it’s ecologically more
disruptive because of the very practices its proponents say are its virtue:
relying on GM crops. Activists derisively call it “Big Ag”.”
The use of biotechnology and
genetic engineering, as well as no-till methods are positives for intensive
agriculture that more than offset any negatives, say advocates. No-till methods
preserve soil fertility and reduce soil erosion. They produce fewer greenhouse
gas emissions. They are less expensive. They do sacrifice some yields, but
still significantly outpace organic yields. Though that yield loss means more
land use, it allows farmers to save money on tilling, which offsets the income
loss from lower yields. I believe no-till methods have somewhere around 10-15%
lower yields, while organic methods have around 15-25% lower yields.
Entine really emphasizes the
success of the Cerrado region in Brazil:
“Dependent on food imports fifty years ago, Brazil has
morphed into the largest exporter of soybeans, sugar, and coffee, and produces
cocoa, fruits, vegetables, and beef. Beef exports have increased tenfold in a
decade. It has accomplished this on 6% of the Cerrado. And it gets minimal
government subsidies—about 4% of farm income. (Half as much as the U.S.
provides; the European Union subsidizes about 30% of farm income, one-third of
its green initiatives.)”
In a section called Organic’s
Unfulfilled Promise, after acknowledging the known environmental impacts of
agriculture like deforestation, water pollution, carbon emissions, and
biodiversity, he notes that environmental NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of
the Earth have exploited those impacts to deride corporate agriculture as a
broken system led by multinational companies. He suggests that there is a
reason only 2% of the world is farmed organically. It can’t be scaled up without
incurring higher costs and using more land. If it were profitable, more would
be doing it. As you probably know, organic food also costs more to buy, which
favors wealthy consumers and does not help poor ones. He notes that the
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture acknowledges that a complete
transition to organic agriculture would result in a “16-33% increase in land
use with a corresponding 8-15% increase in worldwide deforestation.”
Entine is strongly critical
of Europe’s agricultural policies, which still ban genetically engineered as
well as gene-edited crops. I agree with him on this. He notes the EU’s Farm to
Fork strategy, not yet approved, that would increase organic requirement from
the current 9% to 25% by 2030, noting that few, including ardent supporters,
think it is realistic or possible. Some of the EU targets are shown below.
Entine notes that EU
pesticide levels per unit of cropland are very high, much higher than the U.S.,
with Belgium and the Netherlands being triple the U.S. Europe tends to grow
specialty crops like grapes/wine and dairy/cheese, and import many staple crops
like wheat, seed oils, and soybeans. He cites some data that suggests that if
the EU’s Farm to Fork is initiated, it would lead to marginal environmental
benefits but sharply lower average yields, possibly as much as 19% to 40%.
The case for conventional
agriculture is strengthened by the 390% increase in yields since 1960 while
using only 10% more land. Brazil and the U.S. have seen the largest yield
increases.
He recalls the disastrous
experiment of Sri Lanka, advised by Indian anti-biotech activist scientist
Vandana Shiva, where they attempted to implement organic farming and ended up
with immediate massive yield losses. After two years and initial widespread
praise from environmentalist NGOs, results included a 40% drop in rice yields,
followed by economic collapse and food riots in the streets.
“The lesson: while organic can be the appropriate
farming choice where yield and price are secondary considerations, it cannot be
scaled globally without devastating trade-offs.”
The next section covers the
transformation of Brazil’s Cerrado region from one thought to be unsuitable for
agriculture to a global agricultural powerhouse. Two of the main factors
leading to this transformation were no-till methods and genetic modification of
crops. Embrapa, short for Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, the
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, engineered this transformation.
Even Norman Borlaug noted in 1985 that no one thought this region would become
productive.
“Embrapa revitalized the soil by dumping pulverized
limestone to reduce acidity. It used cross-breeding to turn soybeans, a fickle
temperate-climate crop, into one more tolerant of acidic soils and with the
ability to grow two crops each year. They planted vast numbers of eucalyptus
trees to put nutrients into the soil and offset the effects of methane, a
greenhouse gas belched by ruminants. Degraded pastures turned into rich
farmland.”
“Farmers in Brazil began transitioning to farming without
tilling the soil, a practice pioneered in the U.S. a decade earlier. No-till
farming also took root in Paraguay, Uruguay, Columbia, and Argentina, altering
sustainability calculations.”
“Over centuries, organic and conventional farmers alike
were convinced that turning the soil was their only choice to fight weeds. But
tillage is the root cause of agricultural land degradation. The soil erodes,
leading to chemical runoffs. While healthy soil acts as a carbon sink, tilled
soil loses carbon to the atmosphere.”
No-till farming was
implemented along with GMO crops in the mid-1990s. Early GMOs incorporated a
natural insecticide, Bt, into the genetics of the crop, which reduces the need
for additional pesticides. Herbicide-tolerant (Ht) soybeans and maize, and the
development of milder, less toxic herbicides like glyphosate were other
important genetic engineering innovations. Glyphosate, originally developed as
a water softener, has much lower toxicity compared to other EPA-approved
herbicides. The EPA terms glyphosate as “practically non-toxic.” These
innovations allowed and powered a no-till revolution in the U.S., but
especially in South America, beginning in the mid-1980s. While no-till
agriculture leads to slight reductions in yields in fertile soil areas, in less
fertile areas it can lead to increasing yields.
“Brazil reported no-till resulted in the reduction of
soil erosion losses by 97%, higher farm productivity, and income increases of
57%.”
However, that was not good
news for anti-GMO activists:
“The success spurred by pairing GM seeds with glyphosate
irked activists who linked one of agriculture’s mildest herbicides to
discredited claims that it causes cancer. Glyphosate became organic farming’s
Darth Vader.”
Glyphosate applications boomed, but applications of
agricultural chemicals overall dropped steeply. Farmers now use much less
pesticide per acre than they used to.
Entine again acknowledges
trade-offs, citing increases in deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. He
cites a colleague noting that 95% of the pampas in Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay are now no-till operations, and pesticide use per acre continues to
drop every year. He asks if Brazil’s big success in the Amazon savannah, the
Cerrado, can be exported to Africa, which has the world’s highest amount of
undeveloped farmland, though much of it is scattered. Brazil has partnered with
private industry to decrease deforestation.
“Brazil now leads the world in what’s called “green
total factor productivity,” which weighs both environmental impacts and
production. Sub-Saharan Africa lags far behind.”
However, activists, especially in Europe, have long been
warning Africans against all the models employed by Brazil: no-till, genetic
engineering, glyphosate, etc. Organic activists rage against pesticides, hybrid
seeds, and monocultures. They have also railed against large farming
operations, which can be much more efficient, preferring small family farms,
which are often inefficient and can be more polluting per acre. Technological
innovation leads to efficiency in operations, pesticide use reduction, less
land disturbance, and less GHG emissions. The evidence strongly suggests that
small farmers would not be able to meet demand without massively increasing the
amount of land farmed, which also increases biodiversity loss and GHG
emissions.
What is needed, according to
forward thinkers, is “sustainable intensification,” a hybrid model that
incorporates some sustainability principles along with all the established
benefits of intensified agriculture, much like the Brazilian model.
Many activists want no
pesticides and fertilizers, which is not realistic.
“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, 40%
of the world’s agricultural production is lost every year due to pest
attacks—that’s $300 billion worth of food.”
The use of biotechnology,
along with a focus on soil health and preservation of biodiversity, offers the
best approach, he suggests. Then he asks which model is better: Brazil’s or Sri
Lanka’s. The answer is rather obvious.
To recap, I cite another
article discussing the pros and cons of organic vs. conventional agriculture.
Organic offers great soil health benefits, but 19-25% lower yields on average.
Organic farming preserves biodiversity better, up to 30% better according to
one study. It can also offer lower GHG emissions if no-till methods are
adopted. However, that is usually not the case, and organic farms often have
higher GHG emissions. Natural pesticides used in organic farming, such as neem
oil and copper sulfate, can have significant environmental impacts. For animal
agriculture, organic farms have higher animal welfare standards. Organic
certification can be expensive, detailed, and inaccessible to small farmers.
Organic does promote more crop diversity and a higher degree of resilience. The
article goes on to suggest a hybrid model.
“By integrating the strengths of different farming
approaches, a hybrid model can optimize productivity and sustainability. This
approach recognizes the value of diverse farming practices and the need for
innovation in addressing global food security and environmental challenges.”
I have heard that RFK Jr.
plans to announce that chronic diseases in the U.S. are due to farming
practices, particularly the use of pesticides. This would be a lie and would be
a tragic use of a government position to spread the lie.
References:
Viewpoint:
Organic or intensive agriculture? Brazil reframes the debate over the most
promising future for farming. Jon Entine. Genetic Literacy Project. April 25,
2025. Viewpoint: Organic or intensive
agriculture? Brazil reframes the debate over the most promising future for
farming - Genetic Literacy Project
The
Truth About Organic Farming: Is It Really Better for the Environment? Nadal
Deepsin. Climate Compass. April 1, 2025. The Truth About Organic Farming: Is
It Really Better for the Environment?
No comments:
Post a Comment