Intensive agriculture and environmental quality: examining the newest agricultural myth.

Hewitt T.I. and K.R. Smith. 1995.

Henry Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt MD

 

The challenge facing agriculturalists, environmentalists, and others concerned about the sustainability of world agriculture, is how to meet the food needs of between 8-10 billion people in the next century. Even though enormous efforts have been made to enact policies and develop education programs designed to slow population growth, experts now generally agree that we must face the sobering fact that world population is expected to grow by 100 million people a year for the next 30 years. Most of this increase will be in the developing world. It is not surprising, given these projections, that much attention is being focused on what is called "high-yield" agriculture as a necessity for feeding a growing world population. Unfortunately, some proponents of high yield agriculture present this approach in overly simplistic, "either-or" terms. They suggest, for example, that we must rely entirely on pesticides, commercial fertilizers, other chemically-based inputs, and high energy use in land intensive crop production systems, or face the prospect of low per acre yields requiring an expansion of production into marginal land areas, or create a new world food crisis.

This faulty logic is used by Dennis Avery, a particularly aggressive proponent, to further suggest that chemically-based, high-yielding, intensive agricultural systems are the key to protecting wildlife, natural ecosystems and biodiversity, while feeding the world's population. There may be, for some, a naive beauty in stating that chemically-based intensive agriculture will meet all of our production and environmental goals, but this is dangerously misleading. In fact, it can best be characterized as the newest agricultural myth.

John F. Kennedy noted that, "Mythology distracts us everywhere;in government as in business, in politics as in economics, in foreign affairs as in domestic policy." As the federal budget is tightened, it is critical that we do not let this newest myth distract decision makers from the search for and extension of efficient, productive, and environmentally friendly agricultural production alternatives. If modern science can map the human genome, send a satellite to Jupiter, and transfer genes from animals to plants, then certainly we can find ways of increasing crop yields with fewer chemicals and other environmentally threatening inputs and practices. Scientific research has already shown that many practices and systems associated with sustainable agriculture have helped farmers achieve increased yields and profits with reduced reliance on pesticides or purchased nitrogen fertilizers. Yet there is more to be learned and applied as we look toward the 21st century.

Avery's argument, and the myth it nurtures, hold up only under two highly questionable, underlying assumptions: (a) that alternatives to a chemically-based crop production system necessarily requires more land to produce the same amount of output; and (b) that the adverse ecological and health consequences of a chemically-based, land intensive system are minor in comparison to those that would be wrought by expansion of land extensive production systems.

The purpose of this paper is to present well documented evidence that challenges these assumptions, thus refuting the myth and preventing the undesirable effects of its acceptance. We do this by pursuing two general areas of counterevidence. First, we document the fact that the widespread adoption of chemically-based, land intensive crop production systems has had environmental effects which are not only costly in their own right, but which also actually have hindered attempts to provide adequate food for a growing world population. Second, we highlight the results of sustainable agriculture research, and the experiences of some major practitioners of alternative production systems, to demonstrate that these techniques could increasingly be available to meet future global food needs while improving environmental quality.

Finally, we challenge the agricultural research and business communities to investigate the full range of all possible pathways towards the goal of producing adequate food supplies for as many as 10 billion people in the next century. Because no one technological paradigm or class of production systems is likely to prove optimal over all locations and circumstances, a failure to pursue all the alternatives, and the possible synergies among them, is tantamount to irresponsibility.

In a Nutshell...
The Myth:
Chemically-based, land intensive agricultural systems are the key to feeding the world's growing population and their use will, at the same time, enhance wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and unique ecosystems.

The Myth's Assumptions:
The myth does not hold up unless you believe that...
  • Alternatives to chemically-based crop production systems necessarily require more land to produce the same amount of output; and

  • The environmental benefits of limiting land used for crop production outweigh the environmental costs associated with chemically-based crop production systems.
Counterevidence:
Scientific data and expert knowledge which challenge the assumptions on which the myth relies (and, thus, refute the myth itself) include the following:
  • Proof that while some terrestrial ecosystems may benefit from restrictions on agricultural uses, many aquatic and marine systems—increasingly important sources of food as well as biodiversity—are suffering from the consequences of chemically-based systems;

  • Demonstration of a range of negative effects of chemically-based, land intensive crop production on terrestrial ecosystems, which may well outweigh the benefits of restricting production on marginal lands;

  • Documentation of declining yields and/or offsetting production costs associated with intensive chemical use on "Green Revolution" crops; and

  • Mounting confirmation that a range of alternatives to the chemically-based production model can achieve equivalent or higher yields per unit of land area.
Dangers of the myth:
Widespread acceptance of the myth, in light of the evidence against its validity, can preclude investment in R&D on environmentally friendly alternatives to chemically-based production models and discourage agricultural businesses from making strategic decisions about products and services likely to be demanded by future farmers. Ultimately, the myth could impede progress towards achievement of an agricultural system that will feed a growing world population without endangering the natural environment.

 

The ecological impacts of chemically-based, intensive
agricultural systems are serious and costly.

The range and magnitude of adverse consequences associated with runoff and leaching of nutrients and pesticides, and the environmental risks posed by certain agricultural chemicals, discredit blanket claims that chemically-based, intensive agriculture is environmentally friendly. The nature of several consequences of such systems also brings into question their net food production benefits. For example...

Chemical contamination and eutrophication (from runoff of excess nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorous, from cropland) threaten the productivity of the marine and aquatic systems from which a substantial portion of the world's food supply derives.

While terrestrial wildlife habitat may be lost by expanding agricultural acreage, wildlife populations both on and off sites of chemically-based intensive agricultural practice have been adversely affected by exposure to agricultural chemicals and/or wildlife-antagonistic agricultural land use patterns.

Loss of terrestrial biodiversity associated with chemical and land intensive agricultural systems can actually reduce food production efficiency, and have other negative impacts on commercially valued activities.

 

The human health risks of pesticide-dependent, intensive
agricultural systems are decidedly nontrivial.

Human health effects of pesticide use, now well documented, are costly in terms of human lives and quality of life, and, as we explain below, can actually reduce food production efficiency. Justifiable uncertainty about the potential for as yet undiscovered human health impacts of agricultural pesticide use also manifests itself in the marketplace.

Human occupational exposure to pesticides is a significant cause of deaths, worldwide, and is suspected to contribute to serious long-term and chronic health hazards in developed as well as developing countries.

The occupational health hazards associated with pesticide use can reduce agricultural productivity.

Consumers' desire for reduced chemical use in food production is clear, justifiable, and evident from market trends.

 

Chemically-based, land intensive agricultural systems do not guarantee
high productivity. They may not even sustain high yields.

In previous pages we cited evidence that reduced biodiversity and pesticide-related farmworker health problems can make chemically-based, land intensive systems less productive.

In fact, new, improved (Green Revolution), high-yielding varieties in intensive cropping systems have a range of agronomic, economic, and environmental disadvantages that impede food productivity goals.

Yields of some important, intensively produced food crops are actually declining, even as we face the probability of increased population pressures.

 

Sustainable and/or alternative agricultural production techniques often
compete with and sometimes outshine their conventional counterparts.

Sustainable and/or alternative agricultural research has led to tremendous reductions in the negative environmental impacts of agriculture. In some cases, practices and systems associated with sustainable agriculture have out-produced conventional agriculture even though only a fraction of federal research dollars is spent on research targeted at increasing the productivity of sustainable agriculture.

Sustainable agriculture is a highly sophisticated system of production that uses many state-of-the-art technologies.

A recent survey of the research projects funded under the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program highlights a variety of highly technical and innovative production systems.

Integrated pest management has significantly reduced chemical use.

Research suggests that sustainable agricultural systems may reduce farmers' economic risk due to variations in weather.

While organic agriculture is only one of many forms of sustainable agriculture (many sustainable systems use agricultural chemicals in appropriate ways) the economic performance of some organic systems suggests that the equation of high yields or high economic returns with chemical use is entirely invalid.

Sustainability and profitability are clearly compatible.

 

The challenge: bringing high-yield and sustainable agriculturalists
together to face the demands of the future.

"Attempting to solve one problem in isolation may be inappropriate. For example, exclusive attention to meeting food needs can exert a very high, perhaps irreversible, toll on the environment and can make it more difficult to meet food needs in the future. Similarly, a sole focus on preserving the natural resource base can condemn millions to hunger and poverty. Linkages and synergies between problems and solutions must be creatively exploited for the world to be a better place."
(Pinstrup-Anderson and Pandya-Lorch)
40

In previous sections, we show that chemically-based, land intensive agriculture does not necessarily protect wildlife, biodiversity, or water quality. We also provide examples to show that sustainable agriculture outperforms conventional agriculture in some regions and for some crops. This is, of course, only part of the story. Clearly, there are many examples where chemically-based, high-yield agriculture has provided tremendous environmental benefits by protecting marginal lands and allowing people to live off fewer acres. Likewise, in many sustainable agricultural research trials, yields are lower (usually between 5 and 10 percent) than their conventional counterparts. However, what is really needed to produce enough food for 10 billion people in a way that does not devastate the environment is a combination of both types of production. The key to production in the next century is high-yield, sustainable agriculture.

Feeding a growing world population without further endangering the natural environment depends upon public support of high-yield, sustainable agriculture research, education and extension. Alternatives to both chemical-intensive, high-yield agriculture and to land extensive sustainable agriculture can be expected to result from scientific endeavors dedicated to their discovery and development. Only a fraction of the billions of research dollars spent over the last fifty years has been devoted to increasing the productivity of sustainable and/or organic production systems and current funding is being threatened by proposed federal budget cuts.

The demands to dramatically increase food production in the next century may also require a re-evaluation by proponents on both sides of the debate. Farmers, consumers, researchers and others in support of sustainable agriculture will need to evaluate the role that emerging technologies (e.g., precision farming and biotechnology) may play in helping meet food needs at a reasonable environmental and social cost. Likewise, proponents of high-yield agriculture will need to recognize that scientifically valid alternatives to chemically-based agriculture exist and can and should play a vital role in developing the production systems of the twenty-first century.

 

References

1. Pinstrup-Anderson, Per, and Rajul Pandya-Lorch. 1994. Alleviating Poverty, Intensifying Agriculture, and Effectively Managing Natural Resources. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 1. International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, D.C.

2. Dennis Avery. 1995. Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Hudson Institute, Inc.: Indianapolis.

3. Marks, Richard. 1993. "Clean Water: The Seafood Connection." Clean Water and the American Economy, Proceedings: Surface Water Vol. 1, Oct. 19-21, 1992 (March). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 800-R-93-001a.

4. Blisard, Noel and James Blaylock. 1993. U.S. Demand for Food: Household Expenditures, Demographics, and Projections, 1990-2010 (December). Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ERS Technical Bulletin 1818.

5. This sentence is excerpted from the American Fisheries Society's August 1994 Legislative Briefing Statement concerning the 1995 farm bill. Among the reference that statement cites as supporting the close interrelationship of terrestrial and aquatic systems is: Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliot, and R.H. Hamre, technical coordinators. 1985. Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, General Technical Report RM-120, Fort Collins, CO.

6. Op. cit., 3

7. Trim, Alan H. 1987. "Acute Toxicity of Emulsifiable Concentrations of Three Insecticides Commonly Found in Nonpoint Source Runoff into Estuarine Waters to the Mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus," Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. vol. 38, p. 681.

8. Op. cit., 3

9. Stinson, Elizabeth R. and Peter T. Bromley. 1991. Pesticides and Wildlife: A Guide to Reducing Impacts on Animals and Their Habitat. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, publication 420-004. Blacksburg, Virginia.

10. Robinson, Ann Y. 1991. "Sustainable Agriculture: The Wildlife Connection." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. vol. 6, no. 4, pp.161-167.

11. Vance, D.R. 1976. "Changes in Land Use and Wildlife Populations in Southeastern Illinois." Illinois Wildlife Society Bulletin. vol. 4, pp. 121-136.

12. Best, Louis B. 1990. "Sustaining Wildlife in Agroecosystems," Leopold Letter (Fall). vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 4-7.

13. Taylor, M.W., C.W. Wolfe, and W.L. Baxter. 1978. "Land Use Change and Ring-necked Pheasants in Nebraska," Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 6, pp. 226-230.

14. James, Paul C. 1995. "Internalizing Externalities: Granular Carbofuran Use on Rapeseed in Canada," Ecological Economics (June). vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 181-184.

15. Stone, Richard. 1992. "Researchers Score Victory Over Pesticides-and Pests-in Asia," Science (May 19). vol. 256, pp. 1272-1273.

16. Warner, R.E. 1991. "Illinois Farm Programs: Long Term Impacts on Terrestrial Ecosystems and Wildlife-Related Recreation, Tourism, and Economic Development." Report prepared for the Research and Planning Division of the Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources, Springfield, IL.

17. World Health Organization/United Nations Environment Program. 1990. The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture. Geneva.

18. Jeyaratnam, J. 1990. "Acute Pesticide Poisoning: A Major Problem," World Health Statistics Quarterly. vol. 43, pp. 139-144.

19. Zahm, Sheila Hoar, and Aaron Blair. 1992. "Pesticides and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma," Cancer Research (October 1). vol. 52, pp. 5485s-5488s.

20. Rola, Agnes C., and Prabhu L. Pingali. 1993. Pesticides, Rice Productivity, and Farmers' Health: An Economic Assessment. Published jointly by The International Rice Research Institute: Manila, and The World Resources Institute: Washington, D.C.

21. Larsen, Max D. and Patricia L. Colsher. 1995. "National Survey of Attitudes Towards Agricultural Natural Resource Conservation" (February). The Gallup Organization.

22. National Research Council. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

23. Kelce, W.R., C.R. Stone, S.C. Laws, L. Earl Gray, J.A. Kemppainen, and E.M. Wilson. 1995. "Persistent DDT Metabolite p,p'-DDE is a Potent Androgen Receptor Antagonist." Nature (June 15). vol. 375, pp. 581-585.

24. Natural Food Merchandiser, June 1995.

25. Thresh, J.M. 1989. "Insect-Borne Viruses of Rice and the Green Revolution," Tropical Pest Management. vol. 35, pp. 264-272.

26. Davies, W.P. 1991. "Prospects for Pest Resistance to Pesticides." In Aziz, A. (Ed), Pest Management and the Environment in 2000. CAB International, Oxford.

27. Holt, Jodie S., Steven B. Powles, and Joseph A.M. Holtum. 1993. "Mechanisms and Agronomic Aspects of Herbicide Resistance," Annual Review of Plant Physiology. vol. 44, pp. 203-229.

28. Pingali, Prabu. 1994. "Technological Prospects for Reversing the Declining Trend in Asia's Rice Productivity." In Anderson, J.R. (Ed), Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community. CAB International, pp. 384-401.

29. Madden, J. Patrick, Alice Jones, A.J. Dye, Harry W. Wells. 1994. 1994 National SARE/ACE Report to Congress (November). United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service.

30. Ibid.

31. Brown, William H., Diana Jerkins, Jim Gershey, J. Patrick Madden, Harry W. Wells. 1993. Southern Region 1993 SARE/ACE Report to Congress (June 29). Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, and Agriculture in Concert with the Environment.

32. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education & Agriculture in Concert with the Environment. Western Region Annual Report, 1994. pp. 13.

33. Op. cit., 29

34. Fernandez, Michael D. 1994. Pesticide Use Reduction Assessment. United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Congress.

35. World Sustainable Agriculture Association. 1994. "Nature Farming Rice Crop Succeeds Despite Record Cold Summer: Story is Front-Page News in Japan." World Sustainable Agriculture Association Newsletter. vol. 3, no. 12, p. 1.

36. Smolik, James, D., Thomas L. Dobbs, Diane H. Rickerl. 1993. "Relative Sustainability of Systems." In Smolik, James, D. (Ed), Agronomic, Economic, and Ecological Relationships in Alternative (Organic), Conventional, and Reduced-till Farming Systems (September). Agricultural Experiment Station, South Dakota State University. Report number B-718.

37. National Public Radio. 1994. "Organic Farming Series," Morning Edition (November 1). Number 931101-931104.

38. From The Packer, as reported in Nutrition Week (May 12, 1995). vol. 25, no. 18, p. 7.

39. Foltz, John C., John G. Lee, Marshal A. Martin and Paul V. Preckel. 1995. "Multiattribute Assessment of Alternative Cropping Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics (May). vol. 77, pp. 408-420.

40. Op. cit., 1

 

To obtain the published version of this document, print the publications order form, complete it, and mail it with the required payment to the address on the form.

 


Go to the homepage for the former Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.


For more information about the Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural & Environmental Policy at Winrock International, contact us at: wallacecenter@winrock.org.

To report problems with or to comment on this Web site, please contact: jhildebrand@winrock.org

Last updated on 11 January 2000.

All materials contained in this report may be used without permission, provided credit is given.