Why Organic? (complete series)

Why Organic? Part 1

In his book, A Moral Climate (a book I highly recommend), Michael Northcott discusses the ethics of global warming. Naturally, the practices of food production in the first world, and their negative effects on human beings worldwide, are a significant focus of his book. Although there is undeniable evidence that these practices affect the welfare of those in third world countries, that will not be the focus of this post. It is not only third world countries that have been negatively affected by the first world’s obsession with food. The mass production of food that is required to sustain the first world’s incomprehensible appetite has negatively affected the very inhabitants who claim to prosper from it (that’s us).

The world has seen great change in food production practices in the last three centuries. As the industrial revolution developed, there was great population growth and more people demanded more food. This created what some call the second agricultural revolution, partially defined by the dependence on non-renewable energy sources, mainly fossil fuels.[1] Farming, a once honorable and fairly paid profession, has now turned into a method of mass producing food. Government subsidies have essentially bullied family farms into focusing solely on potatoes, corn, soy, wheat or cotton, instead of other vegetables which are, arguably, much better for the human body. Our “modern” and “sophisticated” new ways of producing food in the first world have forced us to clear forests and destroy bioregions, which will have lasting effects on the welfare of the earth.

Domesticated cows account for seventy percent of animal-derived methane gases in the atmosphere.[2] This is, without a doubt, significant, but there are larger implications. The Amazon rainforest is responsible for carrying forty percent of the world’s fresh water into the atmosphere and the oceans.[3] Soya farms, which produce the ingredients to feed domesticated cows, are replacing the Amazon rainforest at a rapid rate to meet the demand for animal feed. Three American agricultural corporations fund sixty percent of the soy farming in Brazil.[4] As meat consumption continues to be the norm in first world countries, soya farmers will keep destroying the very rainforests that can offset the effects of the greenhouse gases these cows, and other products of the first world, create.

African farmers are currently seeing droughts that are causing significant reduction in crop yield, which has led to famine and malnutrition.[5] These agricultural problems will expand to Asian countries as well. As Greenland continues to melt, there will be less warm water from the tropics to cool the North Atlantic. This will cause less monsoon rains in Asia which will lead to a food crisis in China, India and Indonesia.[6] With world population predictions near nine billion in the year 2050, a food crisis will be exponentially impactful.  

These problems are a result of a first world lifestyle and the carbon emissions that it produces. Although there are many factors that contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it is clear that the mass production of food plays a significant role. First world societies do not consider the impact their diet has on the world because we have detached ourselves considerably from the food production process. We have lost the connection between our welfare and the welfare of the earth due to the fact that we have lost all knowledge of where our food comes from. We need to make a conscious decision to consider how our diets are directly affecting the earth we live in.

Citations:
[1] Anthony J McMichael, John W Powles, Colin D Butler, Ricardo Uauy, Food, livestock    production, energy, climate change, and health, The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9594, 12 October 2007, Pages 1253-1263, ISSN 0140-6736, 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2.    (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607612562)

[2] Northcott, Michael S. A Moral Climate: the Ethics of Global Warming. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis    Books, 2007. 237.

[3] Ibid. 242

[4] Ibid. 243

[5] Ibid. 236

[6] Ibid.

Why Organic? Part 2



Human societies have known where their food came from for thousands of years. It is a recent development in the first world that has separated the food production process from the people. The first world claims to be a sophisticated, developed society by doing this, but the fact that our farming practices fail to recognize the interdependency between mankind and the earth has led to destructive behaviors, such as destroying invaluable rainforests and other bioregions. With this disconnect between the citizens of the first world and the food they eat, came a complete disregard for the earth that provides the ingredients. Human beings associate with food differently when they know where it came from. For instance, people generally show a higher appreciation for meals that are home cooked and slaved over for hours than they do a happy meal from a drive through restaurant. The interdependence of humans and the earth has become an issue rarely considered or discussed among the common layperson. This is because our society has moved into large cities far from agriculture. Our food is shipped to facilities which process our food to make it more accessible, marketable and long lasting.

The first world is driven by a fast paced society who value individualism and hard work. It can be argued that these very values are the reason that we are the first world. It can also be argued that we have created a society which does not value community and fellowship. The fast food restaurant industry has made eating on the go a common reality for the fast paced American. Over twenty-five percent of Americans eat fast food every day.[1] Drive thru windows have encouraged this fast paced lifestyle. More and more, people eat in their car on the way to work or just stop for a few minutes to eat by themselves. Although this may be efficient and conducive to the fast paced, overworked lifestyle of American society, it has directly affected the relationships between human beings.

Citation:
[1] Ransohoff, Julia. "Fast Food." Doctors, Patient Care, Health Education, Medical Research | PAMF. Accessed December 12, 2011. http://www.pamf.org/teen/health/nutrition/fastfood.html.

Why Organic?: Part 3

The question of the impact of an individual’s carbon footprint is one that holds some weight in this discussion as well. Can one person’s actions really affect the overall state of global warming? More specifically, will the decision of one person to consume less meat actually make a difference? Although this is a valid point made by many people who, in my opinion, would rather ignore the problem instead of address it, that is not the question that should be asked of a person truly pursuing a healthy lifestyle. A more appropriate question might be whether or not it is right for a person to be conscious of his or her carbon footprint and to act in a way that reduces harm to the planet and fellow human beings residing in it?

The current food production process is not all bad. Although it has direct, negative effects on many people around the world, the price of food is considerably low. The current food production process lowers the cost of food making it more accessible to more people. A can of soup with significant amounts of protein can be purchased for less than fifty cents. The amount of food that a wealthy person can purchase to feed the poor has greatly increased due to the mass production of food. A person might ask, “Isn’t the fact that we can feed so many people with the low cost of food worth the negative side effects?” Once again, this might be the wrong question.

With five dollars, a person can contribute up to fifteen or twenty canned goods to a food drive depending on the sales at their local grocery store. That might be a significant contribution, but is that can of food really good for the homeless person it is feeding? It would be hard to argue that eating the canned food, regardless of its poor quality, would be worse for the homeless person than not eating at all. The question that should be asked is whether or not purchasing those cheap, processed canned goods is contributing to the very system that continues to separate the gap between the rich and the poor.

Why Organic?: Part 4

Northcott concludes his book addressing this question; What if the naysayers are right and global warming is all just a scientific misunderstanding? Although he recognizes that this conclusion cannot be based on any “rational grounds,” it is a question that leads to an even more significant question; would that even matter? If we pretend that science is wrong and global warming is not significant, would the lifestyle changes made due to our understanding of global warming have any negative affects? In all reality, the changes Northcott and I are calling for would only increase the quality of human life.

Addressing the skeptics of global warming, Northcott discusses the concepts of Pascal's wager. (This is not to open a religious discussion or debate. It is simply an example) Pascal’s wager states that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by living a life assuming that God does exist. Moral action rarely lies in certainty. Why do we demand certainty sometimes and other times not? Although there is a significant amount of science to support global warming, unlike the belief in God, this can be applied to the “belief” in global warming. These are moral ways of living regardless of what science says or does not say. We, as human beings, have everything to gain and nothing to lose by making these changes in our lives. By continuing to ignore the issue of climate change, we risk losing our world and ruining it for future generations.

Being conscious of where your food comes from and how that food has affected your fellow human beings cannot have truly negative effects. Americans have a powerful stake in the political realm of the world. There are a lot of Americans who control a lot of money. Returning to the question stated earlier, should a person support the developed world’s food production process by purchasing and consuming meat at the rate that has become common in the first world? In her book “Your Money and Your Life,” Vicky Robin says “How you spend your money is how you vote on what exists in the world.” We have the power to purchase goods or not purchase goods. It is the job of each individual to decide how their money will “vote” for what does and does not exist in this world.

The Solution Series (Sneak Peek)

We at The Organic Hype will be posting a new article series titled “The Solution.” Right now, it is divided into 6 parts, which will be posted once a day for the next 6 days. The Solution Series will end with a 7th article titled “What to do now...” We hope that the “Why Organic?” series has presented our planet’s problem and “The Solution” series will present a solution.

What is the solution? Believe it or not, it is not solely to buy Organic. The solution is much bigger than that. Come back tomorrow for “The Solution: Part 1”

-The Organic Hype