Jon Entine:
Viewpoint: Organic or intensive agriculture? Brazil and South America reframe the debate over the most promising future for farmingIt’s the year 2050, and the world’s population has just passed 9 billion people. Economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of starvation-level poverty. But the encouraging trend comes with a catch: the global population has soared by 70%, spurring a doubling of demand for more calorie-dense, nutritious food yet there are no more large plots of farmable land. Exacerbating the crisis, climate instability is intensifying, disrupting our fragile ecosystem. We are speeding towards a reckoning.
Mutta Euroopassa:
Organic-supporting NGOs have a receptive audience in Europe, which widely rejects GM crops and bans agricultural gene editing. The yet-to-be-passed European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy, the heart of Europe’s Green Deal initiative, lays out a plan to increase organic’s share of the market from 9% now to 25% by the end of the decade. Even its most ardent supporters say that’s impossible.
The more important question, however, is whether its anti-biotechnology model is even desirable. Europe produces specialty greens, wheat, and boutique, and high-value goods like wine and cheese, yet runs a trade deficit in commodity foods. It imports massive amounts of grains and vegetables—oilseeds, rapeseed, and soybeans fed to animals to produce meat and dairy products.
And despite its green intentions, Europe is awash in crop chemicals. Defying popular belief, every European country uses more pesticides per acre of cropland than the U.S.; the Netherlands and Belgium use about three times the amount.
According to Nature magazine and other analyses, if Farm to Fork is implemented, Europe would need to import even more agricultural products, particularly from South America, endangering that continent’s ecosystems. The proposed Green Deal “offshores environmental damage to other nations,” it wrote. And while organic farming may help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions—life cycle analyses are mixed on this—marginal environmental benefits are offset by sharply lower yields on average: a deficit from 19% to 40%.
(lihav. HJ)
Ja Entine tuossa myös unohtaa latausalan. Ts. luomun sadot eivät ole tuon verran
alempia, vaan pikemminkin vain noin tuon verran tavanomaisista sadoista. Ja ylimääräistä viljelykelpoista maata ei missään ole.
