Food is an emotional topic. Everyone cares about what they eat. Food often has a strong cultural, religious or even political meaning attached to it. Organic food is no different in that respect. People buy organic out of hedonistic values of pleasure and health as well as out of altruistic values of environmental sustainability, social justice and animal welfare.
In addition, organic food is also part of the political debate on how to feed the world sustainably today and into the future. Agriculture is currently one of the major threats to the environment. We know that some drastic changes in our food system are needed if we want to ensure that the many hungry people on this planet have access to sufficient nutritious food and at the same time reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.
Organic agriculture is often proposed as a solution to some of these challenges. It promises to produce food in a more environmentally friendly way and to provide accessible means of increasing yields in smallholder farming systems in developing countries.
In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing organic and conventional yields and examined how the yield difference is influenced by different site and system characteristics. The analysis basically showed that organic yields are generally lower than conventional yields, but that under some conditions organic yields can nearly match conventional.
The study's results.Todd Reubold, Intitute on the Environment, University of Minnesota
Click to enlarge
While we anticipated that the study would receive widespread attention, we were not really prepared for the wide range of interpretations of our analysis. Some people interpreted the study to imply that organic food was bad for the environment. Others concluded that we had totally missed the point, as the issue was not about yields anyway.
So, first a disclaimer: we did not attempt to solve the food problems of the world in our study. We evaluated the yield difference between organic and conventional systems using data that had been published in the scientific literature. Not more, not less.
We looked at the yield question, as we believe that yields are an important variable to consider when assessing different farming systems. In the end, whatever you might hold against current conventional agriculture, we have to acknowledge that its high yields have spared land for nature and have improved the food situation of many people.
But we acknowledge (and we do that throughout our article) that yields are only one of many factors we need to consider. Farming systems do not only have to provide food but they also have to use natural resources responsibly and to provide livelihoods to farmers. And the question of feeding the world is even more complicated than that. Feeding the world today does not depend on the total food produced: at the global aggregate scale we currently have enough food to feed everyone. It depends on where this food is produced and at what price. Hunger today is a problem of insufficient access to nutritious food and not of insufficient food availability (although feeding an additional 2-3 billion in the future may require increases in production).
When evaluating an agricultural system, it's important to ask how much yield you'll get.Suzie's Farm
So what message can people take away from our study? The real conclusion of our study is not an easy conclusion of “yes organic” or “no organic”. Although we did mention the overall average yield difference between organic and conventional systems derived from our data, this was not the main point of our study.
Our main contribution was to identify situations where organic performs well and also those situations where there is still a large yield gap to conventional systems. Instead of giving an absolute yes or no answer, we tried to paint a more nuanced picture of the complex and difficult reality of organic farming.
Our study has shown that organic agriculture requires good management practices for high yield performance; that organic performs better under rainfed conditions and weakly acidic to alkaline soils; and that its performance improves over time.
The study has also shown that nitrogen limitation is an issue in organic systems and that we need to improve organic cereal and vegetable management. Here we have two choices. We can improve organic yields by putting more money into organic research (given the little funding organic research has received to date). Or we can turn to conventional practices, which under these conditions may be more environmentally beneficial because of their land sparing effect.
An important knowledge gap we identified is the performance of organic agriculture in smallholder farming systems in developing countries. These are the places where yield increases are most needed and where organic agriculture could potentially provide an important tool for sustainable intensification of farming. Research in these systems is urgently needed.
Organic agriculture shows promise for increasing yields sustainably in developing countries.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Organic agriculture has a role to play in sustainable food production. We can adopt organic farming methods under conditions where it performs best, try to address the identified issues in organic farming systems and we can learn from successful organic practices for conventional systems. In the end, to achieve sustainable food systems we need agriculture that can deliver certain desirable outcomes. And these desirable outcomes might require a blend of different practices, including agro-ecological methods that improve soil fertility and enhance biodiversity as well as targeted use of chemical fertilisers to ensure high crop production.
We hope that with our study we have revealed some of the many shades of grey inherent in the debate about how to feed the world sustainably. Science cannot provide a definite answer on what the best farming system is. But it is not about the correct answer or the correct choice anyway. It is about making the best choice with the information we have. And making these best choices in our complex world requires us to critically evaluate the performance of different farming systems along certain key variables, assessing the associated uncertainties and identifying knowledge gaps.
The same is true from a consumer perspective. Instead of sticking to any single mantra and eating only organic food, only local or only vegetarian, we should do what we do anyway: eat from a diversity of sources following our diverse set of values and trying to do the best with the information we have. This might include buying organic milk from large-scale organic dairy farms to avoid antibiotic residues. It might mean buying conventional apples from a local family farm in support of the local economy. It might mean buying cheap flour from highly productive conventional cereal farmers. Or it might include the organic veggie basket from our local family farm with its diverse polyculture of vegetables produced with utmost care and a large portion of idealism.
The global levels of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2011, only 1 Gt beneath the necessary levels required to keep global temperatures to a 2°C increase.
The figures are part of the preliminary estimates provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) released Thursday.
Global carbon dioxide emissions reached a high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011, representing an increase of 1.0 Gt on 2010, or 3.2 percent. Of the 3.2 percent increase, coal accounted for 45 percent of total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2011, followed by oil at 35 percent and natural gas at 20 percent.
In 2009, the IEA released their 450 Scenario plan, which set out an aggressive timetable of actions to limit the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere to 450 parts per million. The 450 Scenario require CO2 emissions to peak at 32.6 Gt no later than 2017, but that does not seem likely considering the rate of increase and how close we already are to that figure.
“The new data provide further evidence that the door to a 2°C trajectory is about to close,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.
A 6.1 increase in CO2 emissions in 2011 outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was only partially offset by a 0.6 percent reduction in emissions within the OECD.
China was responsible for the largest contribution to the global increase with emissions rising by 720 million tonnes (Mt), or 9.3 percent, primarily as a result of their higher consumption of coal. However, China carbon intensity — the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP — fell by 15 percent between 2005 and 2011. If these gains had not been made, China’s CO2 emissions during 2011 would have been higher by a whopping 1.5 gigatonnes.
“What China has done over such a short period of time to improve energy efficiency and deploy clean energy is already paying major dividends to the global environment,” said Dr. Birol.
India’s emissions rose by 140 million tonnes, or 8.7 percent, pushing it ahead of Russia to become the fourth largest emitter of carbon dioxide behind China, the United States, and the European Union.
The United States saw a drop in CO2 emissions in 2011, with a drop of 92 million tonnes, or 1.7 percent, primarily thanks to the ongoing switch from coal to natural gas in the power generation sector and a surprisingly mild winter which reduced the need for space heating. This brings the United States drop in emissions to a total of 430 million tonnes, or 7.7 percent, since 2006, which ranks it as the highest reduction of all countries and regions.
CO2 emissions in the European Union in 2011 were lower by 69 million tonnes, or 1.9 percent, partially thanks to the slow economic growth and a relatively warm winter.
Japan saw emissions increase by 28 million tonnes, or 2.4 percent, as a result of a substantial increase in the use of fossil fuels in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear reactor incident.
In a really interesting OpEd piece in todays NY Times, Ray and Ulrike Hilborn argue that once a fish stock is recovered, it only punishes the regulated fisherman to not eat their sustainably harvested fish.
May 23, 2012
Eat Your Hake and Have It, Too
By RAY HILBORN and ULRIKE HILBORN
Seattle
WHOLE FOODS recently stopped selling fish that are on the “red lists” of seafood to avoid, issued by the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Blue Ocean Institute. Other major food retailers are considering similar measures, under the assumption that because a species is overfished, it is not sustainable.
Those decisions are based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a sustainable fishery. The fact is that we can harvest a certain fraction of a fish population that has been overfished, if we allow for the natural processes of birth and growth to replace what we take from the ocean and to rebuild the stock. Instead of calling on consumers to abstain from all overfished species, we should direct our attention at fisheries that consistently take more fish than can be naturally replaced.
Bluefin tuna is a classic example of a species that has been consistently harvested too hard and should be avoided by consumers. But at the same time, the United States has made remarkable progress in rebuilding overfished stocks. Wild populations of 27 species have been rebuilt to “healthy” levels in the last 11 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Earlier this month, the agency announced that six formerly overfished stocks had been rebuilt, including Bering Sea snow crab, Atlantic Coast summer flounder and Gulf of Maine haddock.
But even as those stocks were being rebuilt, there were no apparent conservation benefits from the refusal of consumers to buy those overfished species. The catch was limited by rules set by regional fisheries councils based on quotas determined by fisheries scientists and enforced by the oceanic agency and by the Coast Guard. Any boycott punished American fishermen, who got a lower price when the catch was sold abroad.
Elsewhere in the world, many fisheries have become unsustainable because of fishing pressures. Most of Asia and Africa do not have management systems that regulate those pressures. And while Europe does have a management system, the quotas are often based on politics rather than science. Many European stocks are fished too hard — some cod stock, for example — and should be avoided by consumers.
If we are to fully harvest the potential sustainable yield of fish from the ocean, we cannot follow the utopian dictum that no stocks may be overfished. After all, even in sustainably managed fisheries, some stocks will almost always be classified as overfished because of natural fluctuations in their populations.
At the same time, we should recognize that seafood-labeling systems hold seafood to much higher standards than other forms of agriculture. The same stores that won’t sell an overfished species are selling other foods whose production affects the environment far more.
During a recent visit to a Whole Foods store in Seattle, we saw no evaluation of the environmental impact of the meat being sold. Free-range chickens were labeled, but there were no labels telling us if pesticide and fertilizer runoff from growing the corn used to feed the beef caused dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, or if the soybeans came from land clear-cut out of the Brazilian rain forest.
Truly informative seafood labels must distinguish between the abundance of a fish stock and its sustainability. Some fish will be disappearing from supermarket shelves over the next few years even though they are being sustainably managed. Consumers should tell retailers and environmental groups not to “red list” fish stocks that may be overfished but are being replenished.
Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington, and Ulrike Hilborn, a retired organic farmer, are the authors of “Overfishing: What Everyone Needs to Know.”
I've been salivating over Nancy Silverton's Mozza cookbook recently and I have to say that I bought the book because of its cover. On the cover is a beautiful burrata dish. I'd not had burrata (cream-filled mozzarella balls) until very recently and while I've read that it's a more recent invention, Wikipedia claims that it's been around since the turn of the last century. Oh well, I've got a lot of catching up to do! Here's my modification.
Burrata balls cut into 1/2" thick slices Pesto (I've been using a store-bought bottled pesto) Roasted red and yellow grape tomatoes (roast at 350°F for about an hour after tossing with salt and olive oil) Mint and Basil leaves, sliced
Cut the burrata into slices and plate 2 slices next to each other on small serving plates. Spread about a Tbs of pesto on the cheese on each plate. Artfully arrange the roasted tomatoes over the pesto and allow them to tumble off the cheese. Garnish with thin slices of mint and basil leaves.
I served this for the first time at a party recently and folks were calling for more!
I just read this morning that the US has imposed hefty tarifs on inexpensive Chinese solar panels and claim that China is dumping them at below-market prices in the US.
What a stupid thing to do!
First, it is the inexpensive solar technology that will be an essential part of getting Americans to install solar panels in the first place.
Second, it punishes the installers in the US who have been installing these panels.
Third, it encourages wasteful production of something in the US that could be better produced elsewhere.
In my opinion, this sends absolutely the wrong message about creating a sustainable future. Solar MUST be part of our future and we can't wait around while US companies (or German companies, or Chinese companies) make more efficient panels--we have to just get them out there now!
Discussion topic: When are tarifs OK? Why? If we had a natural stewardship amendment, would putting tarifs on a 'green' energy supply be illegal? Should it?
We were all in France recently and Janice's cousins made a delicious monkfish with a green peppercorn cream sauce. Canned 'fresh' green peppercorns aren't too easy to find around here (we brought some back from France) so I've been playing around with substitutions--capers are fine. I've also been playing around with a variety of other fish for this recently and just tried tilapia the other night for a party. THIS IS MY NEW FAVORITE WAY TO PREPARE TILPIA--IT IS DELICIOUS.
4 or 5 tilapia fillets, cut into 1.5" lengths, lightly dusted in seasoned flour (flour, pepper, and perhaps some salt) 2 Tbs butter 2 Tbs olive oil 8 oz heavy cream 2-3 Tbs capers extra pepper to taste
Melt the butter in the olive oil over medium-high heat. Lightly fry the dusted tilapia fillets for about 5 min until they just begin to brown (do not overcook). Turn down the heat to medium. Add the cream and fold in the capers. Cook just until the cream is about to boil. Remove from heat and serve immediately (crack extra pepper on top if you wish). Can be served alone or on rice.
Too many calories, a heap of cholesterol, and wonderful memories of France! YUM!
Charlie Rose interviews Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu, authors of The Gardens of Democracy: A New American Story of Citizenship, the Economy and the Role of Government. Regardless of your political perpective, their arguments that the economy is an ecosystem that requires cultivation, like a garden. Many interesting suggestions about how, and why, we need to think about and fix the economy that cultivates a strong middle class--who they argue--are the real job creators.
In this intimate talk filmed at TED's offices, energy theorist Amory Lovins lays out the steps we must take to end the world's dependence on oil (before we run out). Some changes are already happening -- like lighter-weight cars and smarter trucks -- but some require a bigger vision.
This talk is an overview of his book, Reinventing Fire, which I'm now going to read. This talk provides a nice, positive, counterpoint to a doom and gloom we're going to crash before we can save anything perspective. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.
