Resources at Risk
|
Archived Articles
Species on the Brink
Resources at Risk
Good News
Get Outdoors |
Ol' McDonald Had an Industrial Enterprise BaltIMORE, Maryland, April 2, 2002 (ENS) - "The bad news is that the way we grow food now cannot be sustained into the future," says Leo Horrigan. As senior research program coordinator at the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Horrigan has just completed a review of food production methods, focusing on practices in the United States. "The good news, though, is that there are already a lot of success stories out there of people who are farming in a way that is both ecologically and economically viable," Horrigan says.
Industrial agriculture's resource intensive methods are bringing humans closer to the limits of our ability to produce food and fiber for everyone in the future, the Center's review concludes. Set for publication in the May 2002 issue of the journal "Environmental Health Perspectives," the analysis outlines the environmental and human health problems associated with current food production practices, and explores the emerging sustainable agriculture movement. "Industrial agriculture's damaging impacts on the environment and public health are becoming more apparent all the time, and will only intensify if we continue down this path," Horrigan says. The report's co-authors, Robert S. Lawrence, MD, and Polly Walker, MD, join Horrigan in saying the environmental and public health impacts of industrial agriculture are many and far reaching. "The earth's population currently stands at six billion - a number estimated by the United Nations to increase to 9.3 billion by the year 2050, says Lawrence, who is professor of preventive medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and director of the Center for a Livable Future. "As our population grows, so too will the demands we place on the environment. We simply cannot continue to abuse the environment and ourselves in such a fashion."
Industrial agriculture erodes natural resources faster than the environment can regenerate them, and it depends heavily on resources that are nonrenewable, such as fossil fuels, the review says. Lawrence and his colleagues use examples from around the world to illustrate their points, but they place emphasis on the United States food system. Because of its focus on resource intensive meat production, the U.S. system represents one of the worst case examples of the pitfalls of industrial agriculture in the Center's analysis. The use of growth promoting antibiotics in animal agriculture is thought to be one of the factors driving the increase in antibiotic resistance disease in humans. Animal crowding in factory farms and high speed processing of food animals have been blamed for an increased incidence of foodborne diseases. Heavy farm machinery degrades soil health and poor farming practices deplete soil fertility. Excessive fertilizer and pesticide use pollutes waterways, and growing the same crop over hundreds of acres diminishes biodiversity. Not only is the environment damaged by industrial agriculture, but the health of humans is damaged as well, the authors say, because of the foods that are emphasized and the way they are produced. The animal based diet that prevails in the industrialized world, and is on the rise in many developing countries, is linked to chronic degenerative conditions such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. These diseases are diminishing the quality of life for many people, and also putting a large burden on the health care systems of many countries. Human health is further jeopardized by the heavy use of pesticides, which are associated with elevated cancer risk and possibly endocrine disruption and reproductive dysfunction.
One of the goals of the sustainable agriculture movement is to create farming systems that mitigate or eliminate the environmental harms that are associated with industrial agriculture. The authors describe several farming methods that enhance sustainability, but they also stress that sustainable agriculture is not merely a package of prescribed methods. It must include a change in mindset whereby agriculture acknowledges its dependence on a finite natural resource base. The problems inherent in industrial agriculture are complex and there is no single solution, so many people might feel powerless to affect them. But associate director of the Center for a Livable Future, senior author Dr. Polly Walker says one personal act that can have a profound impact on these issues is reducing meat consumption. "To produce one pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and seven pounds of grain," she explains. "The average American consumes 97 pounds of beef a year. At that rate, even a modest reduction in meat consumption would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources, not to mention the personal health benefits reaped from less animal fat in the diet." Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All rights reserved. |
Agricultural engineer Kenneth Sudduth examines a sample of grain collected from this combine's grain flow sensor. (Photo by Bruce Fritz courtesy 
Entomologist Brad Higbee (left) discusses areawide insect pest suppression with Jerry Wattman, manager of this apple orchard near West Parker Heights, Washington. (Photo by Scott Bauer courtesy USDA)
Cattle in a feedlot (Photo by John Nienaber courtesy USDA) 