Swallowing Eco-Hype

How much more organic farming could this country sustain given that, as you say, it requires so much more land than conventional farming?
That's a difficult question to answer. On the whole, conventional has higher yields. We can't ignore that when we think of expanding organic culture. Especially given that with climate change, we are going to confront new fungal diseases, new viruses, and new pests that organic may not be able to control. With the question of yield aside, it's safe to say you would need more land for organic farming. And you would also need many thousands of pounds of manure for a single acre of organic crops, and if we're going to have large organic farms, [then we'll need to] transport that product all over the country. There is also a chemical reliance in organic agriculture; they just happen to be natural chemicals, like nicotine sulfate, which is horribly dangerous. But just because I'm pointing out potential problems with organic farming doesn't mean I'm saying this is a system we shouldn't be pursuing. But we should be pursuing it alongside other solutions.

Perhaps by growing genetically modified (GM) food? You argue that genetic modification allows for food-growing on a larger scale, feeding more people and reducing the needs for pesticides. You also acknowledge that there are unknown health risks in consuming GM foods, but that that shouldn't stop us from growing them. Do you really think it's worth the risk?
There are lots of concerns with GM foods, but we haven't seen any evidence of it. Anyone who eats processed food is eating GM corn or soy. Half our sugar is GM now. Ninety percent of the corn in this country is genetically modified, and it's not just going to animals, it's going to high-fructose corn syrup. There's a movement to start testing these products and finding out if they're GMO [genetically modifed organism]-free and labeling it.

There's no regulation for that?
None at all. And the FDA seems really resistant to moving in that direction.

Why is that?
The argument that the seed companies make is that you impugn their product by labeling other products GMO-free. And the fact that there is no evidence to support any negative health consequences is justification for their arguments. I tend to think the consumer deserves to know. There are possible concerns with all kinds of seeds that are conventionally bred as well. When we conventionally breed seeds to acquire certain traits, who's to say that that breeding technique might not have negative health consequences? There's just no predicting. And there's no way you can test for every possible negative consequence of a seed. I've talked to too many plant biologists who said this is a technology that if used properly can serve very real environmental and humanitarian needs, and I'm not willing to ignore them. I'm not terribly fearful of the health consequences.

According to your book, you're not terribly fearful of synthetic pesticides either, even though numerous studies have pointed to their potentially deleterious effects. Why?
I'm much more fearful of a food-borne allergen than I am on the effect of pesticides on my health. I support organic farming because they don't use synthetic pesticides, but I also support a much more rational use by conventional farmers. In the late 19th century they were dumping arsenic and lead on fruits and vegetables, so the pesticides we're using today are nowhere near as dangerous as what we were using in the past. Which is not to say they're not dangerous, but for me there are lots of other concerns that come before the impact of trace pesticides on myself.

By now, many of us are aware that we need to reduce our meat consumption because of its terrible effect on the environment. Factory farming is bad for the air, the water, and the land—not to mention the animals. Consequently, many people have turned to grass-fed beef. But you say that comes with its own set of environmental problems. What do you mean?
Many grass-fed cows are eating grass that's been fertilized or irrigated. As a result, the amount of greenhouse gases that go into its production is a lot higher. You also need eight to 10 acres a cow. If everyone ate grass-fed beef, it would mean giving up a lot of arable land and chopping down rainforests, which is already happening in some places. The bottom line is, animals are inefficient. By the end of the day, I don't care if it's grass-fed or if it's from a conventional system, only 40 percent of it is turned into edible meat.

You became a vegetarian after writing this book.
I did. [After looking] at the research I did into meat production, I couldn't reconcile eating meat with the kind of environmentalist I want to be. I certainly don't preach that others become vegetarian; I advocate becoming as vegetarian as you can.

You say that you wrote your book "somewhat against" your will. What do you mean by that?
I don't like having to write a chapter telling people to eat less meat, because meat tastes good. It's a sacrifice. That's something that's missing in a lot of our discussions about environmentalism and sustainability—the idea of sacrifice. What kind of personal sacrifices are we willing to make? Putting our glass into the right container and dragging it out to the curb is not much of a sacrifice, but I think giving up meat certainly is. I would loved to have been able to say that what we need to do is put all of our eggs in the organic basket, but when I honestly scaled it up I could not ignore these potential problems. I would have preferred to find a silver bullet, but I couldn't.

© 2009