Mistrust of Science Won’t Help Create Sustainable Agriculture

Published October 28, 2009 @ 06:47AM PT

When it comes to food and farming there is no 'natural' ideal to which we can possibly strive. Though organic food and sustainability helps us reacquaint ourselves with where our food comes from, are we fetishizing the idea of 'natural' and 'real' food? We've never agreed what these words mean, leading us to oppose and mistrust science, to the detriment of a growing population that we'll need to feed. That's the argument of a recent piece in Seed Magazine, asking us to rethink broad and vague terms that have little scientific merit.

Political scientist Robert Paarlberg explained in his 2008 book, Starved for Science, that whilst the productivity of our farms has risen through the application of science, we don't need any more of it; “This turn against new agricultural science is an affordable attitude in rich countries, but it becomes dangerous if exported to science-starved poor countries,” he explained.

It isn't enough to assume organic food is a universal good for the world. If it's shipped half way across the country or planet, conventionally grown local food is better. Similarly, the article speaks favorable of biotech firms and makes the compelling point that shouldn't we mustn't automatically distrust science in the name of 'natural food' — especially when it comes to feeding a growing population.

Photo credit: Unhindered by Talent

Share this Post

Comments (5)

Starved for Science is an excellent book. Everyone should read it.

Posted by Robert Wager on 10/28/2009 @ 08:03AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 1 person likes this comment. Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Robert
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Nicely put Mike. I think the whole, pro-this = anti-that doesn't really help us get to real solutions about how we solve the impending food crisis. It's good to open a dialog on the issue and encourage reading on all sides of the debate. I'd like to see Paarlberg and Pollan on a panel or in a debate. It'd be an interesting conversation.

Posted by Aaron Smethurst on 10/29/2009 @ 10:55AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Aaron
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
May I suggest people read this.

http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Organic/Wood-Natures-Fields-2001.pdf

Posted by Robert Wager on 10/29/2009 @ 11:08AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Robert
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I don't like to hear about resolving one's self to agree with all things scientific..

I believe this article is idealistic and more than a little misleading.

It is not a mistrust of science, my friend, it is a mistrust of corporations who control science for profit.

Please get this right...

I think the author here needs to do a bit of research into the history of Monsanto's coverups and payoffs to victims, for instance.

Genetic alteration of basic cereal grains so that they are dependent upon harmful chemicals for their growth only allowed by authorization by corporations and the purchase of specific patented seed and chemicals...

Only then to be feed for massive concentration camps of animals? NOT FOOD for HUMANS... ?

Many things can be regarded as "science" and this article poses a very shallow argument.

It is not sustainable to be dependent upon patented goods from only a very few sketchy international corporate purveyers...

We cannot predict the future, but it's looking like human's ever increasing population will develop ever more dependency on fewer and fewer "for-profit" entities... and this sort of corporatism of governments is inevitable

Presenting arguements that criticize a fear of science leads me to emphasize the need to RESPECT science, and respect the fact that we don't know everything... but "science" will play around until corporations have pushed their way into a dependency model across the globe.

and the idea is to imagine, then create a sustainable model...

The current population increase is also not sustainable.

The "Science will save us" theories can look to the future and propose that science, and good intentions can also provide birth control methods to these starving nations once they are lifted out of poverty through opportunities created via world trade and advances in sustainable agriculture.... Except then we wake up from this dream-scape and remember that world trade has been more exploitive than anything and has only moved more wealth into the hands of fewer people... AND there hasn't been a lot of real advances in SUSTAINABLE agriculture, scientific or otherwise... except in theory, and what does exist is almost an anacronism being reenacted at a very small scale... .

The answers to the question "how to feed the world" is being answered by very large, restrictive corporations...

Which, again, focuses more wealth into the hands of fewer people

Oh, sigh, to be idealistic, hopeful, trusting and optimistic... those were the good old days!

Posted by Laurie Walker on 10/29/2009 @ 02:19PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Laurie
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I agree that obsessing about organic is counterproductive. We have a spoiled generation of young people (my own two twenty-somethings tell me this) who live on fast food and frozen packaged meals. They don't know where to start when it comes to cooking with whole foods and eating mostly vegetarian. We need to change our habits sooner that later and too much idealistic hair-splitting makes it easy for fence-sitters to give up and go back to McDonald's. Please pass around my site, it's a whole program for eating simply, but tasty and especially cheap, which is great for the underemployed and students.

Lynn

http://www.10in10diet.com/

Posted by Lynn Shwadchuck on 11/02/2009 @ 10:32AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Lynn
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.