Defining Agriculture: Organic

“Organic” is a term coined by Walter Ernest Christopher James, more commonly known as Lord Northbourne, is his book Look to the Land. Lord Northbourne was skeptical of modern agricultural developments, and asserted that too many alterations in an ecosystem’s natural order would result in serious shortcomings within the industry. (Clever fellow.) Since his original use of the term, the organic food market has grown faster than any other branch of food sales. It has become the constant opponent to “conventional” food operations (a hilarious bit of irony when you stop to consider that organic was conventional throughout known human history.. up to the twentieth century, that is. Now, evidently, hormones and chemical additives are more conventional than good ol’ rain and sunshine.)

The principles of the current organic movement vary by location, but I’ll outline them… roughly.

Meet: Darrell Turner, Part-Time Urban Farmer

Earlier this Fall I interviewed Darrell; an engineer, part-time gardener and damn fine authority on okra and chick-peas. His perspective on modern agriculture is an interesting one, and what he has to say on the subject is representative of many Midwesterners. Consider him a poster boy for the area’s conservative urban farmers.

L’Avant Gardener: How did you get started growing food?

Darrell Turner: It’s part of my family’s history, I guess. Both sides were farming before the start of the second World War. My grandparents grew grains, mostly. That was before everything was industrialized, so they kept horses for heavy labor. After the war, the industry wasn’t really the same. They replaced corn and oats with soybeans, and the farm sort of shrank to a subsistence operation, not really a big business. After that, they started working factory jobs. But there was always a garden.

And your parents? Did they farm too?

They didn’t farm, really, but they grew some food. I never remember buying things like juice, beans, or tomato sauce at the store because we always had some put by.

So you probably knew how to keep a garden by the time you started your own.

Yeah. If I didn’t remember something, I’d just read up on it. I know plenty of people who think I’m weird for knowing all about vegetable gardens and canning… especially because I’m a guy, I guess. (So farming now has all of the sexual stigma of quilting… great.) Then there are people at work who say “Why bother? I can buy that at the store.”

But I’d imagine you benefit from growing your own food, or you wouldn’t be gardening.

I do. The quality is better and it’s cheaper, but I don’t do it to save money. The reason I keep growing my own food is because I enjoy the work.

Told You So

A United Nations website that aims to give resources and soapboxes to relief organizations has published an article claiming that an undereducated female population has a direct relation to that population’s hunger. What did I tell you?

See reliefweb.int for more.

On Weston Price (1870-1948)

Dr. Weston Price, D.D.S. was an interesting fellow. Fed up with the battle against tooth decay at his Cleveland practice, Dr. Price packed his bags for… Africa.

Not just Africa, though. He traveled to South America, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, the Outer Hebrides and the Pacific Islands. His mission was to collect data on the state of dental hygiene around the globe. What he accomplished was a nutritional revolution.

After years of painstaking research, we can summarize his findings in a few key points.

• Natives to a particular locale survive on the foods they can obtain from that environment.
• Without advanced technology, this food was often eaten fresh, or with little adulteration.
• While maintaining their local diets, native peoples displayed many key signs of excellent health.
• When introduced to a “Western Diet” of highly processed flour, sugar, and preservatives, the subjects suffered from rapidly declining health.
• When processed foods were removed from the diet, the native peoples’ health returned.

Of course, Dr. Weston Price, D.D.S. was doing this research to benefit the world of modern dentistry. It wasn’t until he had to connect some unpleasant dots that he realized the magnitude of his findings. Not only did American Indians, Eskimos, Aborigines and Islanders have naturally good teeth, they also had far fewer run-ins with degenerative “Western” diseases. (Heart Disease, obesity, cancer, etc.)

He didn’t have much of a fan base, surprisingly. Imagine coming back home to Ohio and telling folks to give up sugar and white flour because some undereducated, unkempt native tribes were living healthier, happier lives. Even today, his work is being disputed. Once a chairman of the American Dental Association, Dr. Price is now “the quack” who thinks root canals are harmful, and precautionary dental health should be the more common practice. His name was besmirched upon return to the states, and his research confined to the practice of holistic dentistry.

Only.. Have you ever had a root canal? I think this guy was on to something, and it seems I’m not alone. Organic farmers are backing him, for instance. So are food scientists, journalists and chefs. People are getting more bold, and starting to confront the modern processed food industry about hundreds of unresolved issues. Who told us to load up on carbohydrates? Who took the nutrients out of exported foods because pests (rats, mice, insects) would rather eat nutrient rich products than processed? Who pushed margarine on us? High fructose corn syrup? Baby formula?

The guy might have been eccentric (Would you quit your day job to go stick your fingers in the mouths of a hundred tribesman?) but he was observant. His very simple advice to westerners has been ignored for about one century too long. It’s time to reset the national dinner table.

The Mathematics of Hunger

Ah, high school. There always comes a day when you’ve had-it-up-to-here with Algebra and Statistics and you just can’t help asking the question (as so many have before you) “Exactly when will I ever use this stuff in real life?” Your sweet natured, albeit boring teacher could have told you the truth: “You’ll use it when you’re trying to get out of debt after you graduate college and can’t find a decent job. You’ll use it when your auto-insurance payment goes up because you moved to a different zip code. You’ll use it when you get an abscessed tooth and try to file a claim with your less-than helpful insurance hotline.” But she didn’t, thank goodness. Can you imagine the meltdown?

I have another grown up way you can put that high school education to use: Have you ever heard of the GHI?

The GHI, or Global Hunger Index, is a way for the concerned souls among us to be everywhere at once. Using this data, we can quickly scan a list of the world’s hungriest countries, and get a good idea of how they compare to others. The index makes use of a simple equation that takes into consideration three equal factors:

a. The proportion of the country’s population that is malnourished.
b. The proportion of children under 5 years old who are underweight.
c. The prevalence of fatalities among the same age group of children.

The equation is delightfully simple. You should have seen something like it in Basic Algebra:

You may be asking “Why are two thirds of the equation focused on children?” We look to children because hunger affects us most when we are in a developmental state. Serious malnutrition at such a young age can negatively affect a child’s mental and physical growth, dramatically reducing it’s chances of survival.

This number is easy for us to read, whether we are statisticians or busboys. A zero in a category is the best. It means that 0% of the population fits any of the criteria. It’s a pipe dream. Developers of the index say that a 0% is impossible. So, however, is a 100%. Basically, you want a GHI of less than 4.9%. That takes you off of the FAO’s worst-hit list. If your index is over 30%, make a pot of tea. Angelina is coming.

Like any revolutionary way to quantify an aspect of humanity, the GHI has it’s flaws. For one, it requires a lot (a LOT) of information. Piecing together all of the data collected by the three contributors to the index (WHO, FAO, and Unicef) takes more time than we have. Hence, the list of GHIs published in 2008 was based entirely off of information gathered no later than 2006. Has the world changed since then? Um, yes.

And take a look at those three organizations. Do you have beef with any of them? Plenty of economists and hippies do. These folks don’t fancy a “definitive method of measuring world hunger” based strictly off of information gathered by some collective of fiscal-headed suits. However, until skeptics can raise millions of dollars and thousands of personnel, the GHI will just have to do.

What have we learned from the development of the GHI?

• People suffer in times of war. Kuwait’s index dropped significantly as soon as Iraq got the heck out of dodge, and left them alone long enough to clean up the post-invasion mess. Lesson? Stop shooting at each other.
• People suffer when they are denied freedom. The 15 countries with the highest (worst) GHIs are rated as non-free or partially free by the Freedom House Index. Lesson? Let it ring.
• A growing economy does not equal a shrinking rate of malnutrition. Swaziland and Botswana’s production are both on the rise, but the persistence of HIV/AIDS and general inequality has kept the poor communities very, very poor. Lesson? If water isn’t trickling from the start of the plumbing to the end, look for a clog.

Aw, look at you. Your high school teacher would be very proud. You’ve applied some very basic mathematical principles to everyday life, and the whole world can benefit from your little inch of extra understanding. How’s that for a reason to stay awake in third hour?

To see the recently published 2009 GHI, look here.

Currently Reading

In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.

By Michael Pollan

This book offers incredible insight into the changing diets of Americans. Pollan blames the current rates of disease and obesity on the rise of the blurry science of “nutrients”, and the fall of real food. We’ve begun to look at food as a sum of nutrients that can harm or heal, give or take, add or subtract. The experience of eating is no longer a delicious art, but is often done cheaply and in haste. Not only does this new approach to food make us calorie-obsessed grouches and fast chewing speed-demons, it’s also making us fat and sickly. Pollan points out what history would already tell us, (if we took the time to dig deeper): Food processing companies have been experimenting on the bodies of Americans for nearly a century. Guinea pigs, this is war.

Pollan scoffs at the over processed non-foods that advertise new health claims every year (as old health claims are proven false and new ones are taken to press). 100 calorie pack anyone? No saturated fat? No trans fat? No, um.. monosyllable ingredients? He would rather see us eat fresh foods, and eat them with dignity.

His rules of dietary success are simple, and admittedly genius: EAT FOOD. NOT TOO MUCH. MOSTLY PLANTS.

Commandments aside, the book can be wordy. The references, footnotes and sources stack up quickly, but I like a well researched claim. It’s refreshing.

In all, it’s a worth while read. I’m excited to move on to another work of Pollan’s; The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Excellent title, I think.

Myth 3: Too Many Mouths to Feed

I know. Even if overpopulation isn’t causing world hunger, it sure isn’t helping anybody, right?

…..Kind-of.

The authors of World Hunger: Twelve Myths are out to prove that overpopulation is not a valid excuse for the hunger epidemic. Rather, the failure to equip people with adequate resources (no matter the population’s state of growth or decline) is deemed the cause.
This makes sense, of course. Study after study says so.

Let me illustrate something for you before we move on. The state of Ohio has a population twice the size of the East African country of Eritrea. Eritrea, according to the 2006 report published by the United Nations World Food Programme, is the hungriest country in the world. 73% of it’s inhabitants suffer from malnutrition. Add to these nuggets of trivia that Eritrea is also 1,000 km² larger than Ohio.

Knowing that Eritrea has more land and half of the inhabitants,

why is it that Eritrea is the world’s hungriest country,

and 63.3% of Ohio’s population is overweight? (Kaiser, 2008)

Because of politics, obviously.

The key to understanding the overwhelming number of starving poor in nations such as Eritrea is looking at the representation, not the reproduction. Take a moment to stretch out your index finger and point it at the public servants… the parents can hardly be considered the guilty ones. Studies show that impoverished families depend on children to provide labor and income. Consider that there are few methods of subsisting available in third world communities, and children (conveniently) begin providing more than they demand as soon as the age of six years old.* (M.Y. Cain, Population and Development Review 3)

*This statistic is totally unrelated to American children, by the way. Picking up dog poop on Saturdays hardly pays for Nike shoes, a prom dress, letter jackets and a camera phone. It was based on a study done in Bangladesh, not the ‘burbs.

These children are not being born due to passionate romantic evenings spent on the beach, or to an abominable lack of Jesus in their lives. Population growth cannot be fixed by condom or bible distribution. Believe me. Folks have tried.

If we want to slow the growth of third world populations, the answer is simple (and kind-of sad). Educate the women. Time and time again, women have proved that, with an education comes independence. With independence comes a shrinking rate of pregnancy. There’s a very good reason that all of those micro-loans are being handed to mothers, not fathers. Women in developing nations will outshine the men in their age bracket when given the opportunity to start a business or plant a garden. This could be due to dozens of reasons (not the least of which might be the bitter memory of experiencing unaided and unmedicated childbirth on a dirt floor).

However, the education of the female sex is not the whole issue here. Hunger is. And hunger is simply not due to overpopulation. Mankind has the resources to provide for itself until its population rises over 11 billion people. Oddly enough, many scientists say that this is the point at which our swelling numbers will cap and stabilize. (I wonder why?) If we can feed feed 11 billion, we should certainly be able to feed 6.9. And who better to lend themselves to the cause than Americans? Americans are well educated and well fed, with the power to really turn world hunger into world abundance. The problem is, we aren’t.

Americans spend their time watching the numbers on the microwave count down to zero. Americans spend their time at stoplights. Americans spend their time taking naps.

Americans don’t have time to fight for global justice. Americans don’t have time to fight for the rights of their brothers and sisters. Americans are busy right now, thank-you-very-much.

The bottom line is this;

You can’t blame the state of the world on anybody but the people who have the power to make a difference, and don’t.