So... Here we go with 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment