Feeding a hungry planet?

An article in Grist caught my attention today. It is about a recent NPR Marketplace piece touting the need for getting poor, rural farmers around the world using synthetic fertilizer & other chemicals if we are ever going to produce enough food to feed 9 billion people by 2050.

The problem with the story was that it relied on one man's opinion, and did not include any other perspective. The story did not mention that the chemicals and fertilizers are too expensive for poor, rural farmers in 3rd world countries to buy. Nor did it mention that there are other, low cost ways that rural farmers can boost productivity without becoming dependent upon petroleum-based fertilizers.

Finally, the story failed to mention a groundbreaking study about the future of agriculture that was conducted by the UN, World Bank and others, and completed in 2009. The 400 agriculture experts from around the world who worked on the project for 4 1/2 years, concluded that the planet must move away from chemical & fossil-fuel dependent agriculture if we want to have a sustainable future to feed a growing world population. In fact, the study recommends using an agro-ecological type of farming at a small and mid-size scale "that does not deplete natural capital."

No question that having enough food for everyone as the world population grows is an important issue. And, synthetic fertilizers and large-scale agriculture has worked well for some in the United States to generate amazing crop yields. But one has to ask if our way of doing things is a sustainable system with the cost of fuel rising & a growing interest in local food. Plus, is the US agriculture system even the right model for other parts of the world with vastly different cultures, transportation systems, soils & climates?