Industrial Agriculture Must Give Way to Sustainable Farming

From Agribusiness Examiner #297 10/29/03
By Al Krebs

THAYNE COZART: The proclaimed economic and societal benefits of a worldwide industrial agriculture system wouldn't measure up very well when compared to a sustainable agriculture system if an evaluation of the industrial system honestly measured all of its "external costs" against its claimed benefits.

That was the primary point driven home by Jules Pretty, professor and
director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of
Essex in England, during a seminar to students and faculty who packed a
classroom at Iowa State University October 20.

The topic of Pretty's seminar was "Rethinking Agri-Culture as if the Real
World Matters." The seminar was sponsored by the Energy Initiative of ISU's Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the ISU bioethics program.

Pretty, who also is editor of the Journal of Sustainability, contended that
"those who support industrialized agriculture measure its success in narrow
economic terms of food price and availability and tend to ignore its costly
unintended consequences to society and the environment."

He added, "They are not being seriously challenged to give a full
accounting. We are trying at the Centre to change that by scientifically
measuring or estimating in Britain what we call the 'externalities' of
industrialized agriculture and also the full benefits of a sustainable ag
system."

In the British study, some of those industrial ag externalities evaluated
were: water pollution from farm waste, soil nutrients, erosion, and
pesticides; loss of landscape and biodiversity; food-borne diseases; air
pollution from gaseous emissions; unnecessary transportation costs of food;human dislocation from rural to urban; rural community decline; poor human diets and obesity, and cost of direct government subsidies.

In his study, the annual costs of these externalities during the 1990s
totaled 1.54 billion pounds (approximately U.S. $2.6 billion). "Britain had
to spend this to deal with the effects of industrial ag, so this cost is a
hidden subsidy from the public to polluters," Pretty emphasized.

Some of the sustainable ag benefit he tried to evaluate were: landscape
aesthetics, biodiversity, clean water, flood protection, carbon
sequestration, rural economy, and community cohesion.

The largest value ascribed to a positive benefits from sustainable ag
practices was 14 billion pounds (U.S. $23.7 billion) for rural landscape
services (tourism). In Britain, the annual value for rural tourism
outstripped the total value of all the food produced nearly 10-fold.