In the latest edition of Foreign Policy Magazine, Robert Paarlberg writes about how despite high-profile campaigns to raise awareness of the benefits of growing food organically, the movement’s ethos of “…organic, local, and slow — is no recipe for saving the world’s hungry millions.”
Instead, Paarlberg defends industrial farming as the method to ensure a strong global food supply, contending that large food markets sustain the majority of those who eat – “the well-to-do” of the world. In his estimation, smaller, local farms will not only not provide enough food for those in areas of chronic food shortage, but would not accommodate the needs of the largest consumers of food products.
In an FP Rebuttal Anna Lappé cites a study by offering evidence about “…whether we could, indeed, feed the world with organic, sustainable methods of farming. The results? A resounding yes.” She rejects Paarlberg’s claims, which would make those in the organic movement question if they are “…starving the poor by pushing for sustainability.”
Who offers the better case for ensuring the global food supply? Read each article and post your opinions.
Posted by Michael Lucivero.
Photo credit: Foreign Policy Magazine
