[BCFSN] Book Review | "Unnaturally Delicious" | Not Letting Nature Take Its Course

[Pamela Zevit Adamah Consultants]

Haven’t read the book but an interesting review.

	

 <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/pdUVu/~3/1UTWEVDA1gw/book-review-unnaturally-delicious-not.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> Book Review | "Unnaturally Delicious" | Not Letting Nature Take Its Course 

Posted: 01 Nov 2016 09:05 AM PDT

 <https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h3cFHYBnuQI/WBdwahN_0SI/AAAAAAAAB3k/vI36lldIfSIrIg82m64ZDS3NW9eKHOzkwCLcB/s1600/unnaturally%2Bdelicious.jpg> 

Unnaturally Delicious: How Science and Technology Are Serving Up Super Foods to Save the World

Jayson Lusk 

St. Martin’s Press | 2016m | 246 pp. ISBN: 978-1250074300

 

The romantic ideal of small, organic farms providing everyone with healthy food is likely impossible on a planet of seven billion people, soon to be nine or ten billion. As with any purist undertaking, the local food movement presents an idyllic, not a pragmatic reality. Indeed, the opposite is more nearly true, argues Jayson Lusk in his new book,  <http://us.macmillan.com/unnaturallydelicious/jaysonlusk> Unnaturally Delicious: How Science and Technology Are Serving Up Super Foods to Save the World. He describes how food technology, most often applied in large-scale farming, has created a planet of healthier humans, amply fed by our amazing ability to innovate, to bend nature to our will, providing us with an ever-increasing array of delicious, nutritious food.

A food and agriculture economist, Lusk has previously criticized the naivete of many “natural” food advocates in The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto about the Politics of Your Plate. As a disciple of progress, Lusk admits that “in the past…I often bristled when the word sustainability was mentioned.” This is partly due to “the way many people propose to achieve it. In food and agriculture sustainability has come to be interpreted as synonymous with organic, natural, and local.” Regarding agriculture, he argues that “[g]rowth in yields is a key aspect of sustainability. Yet, many environmentalists contend that sustainability means only what nature will allow.” He also takes issue with the idea that we need a smaller population and that economic growth must end. Still, over time Lusk admits he has come to terms with the need to sustain our economy for future generations and—to an extent, at least—has realized that the dangers to our environment our severe and that they threaten future economic prosperity. He explains that, “I now am in favor of sustainability. Because, as I see it, sustainability and using agricultural technology are one and the same.”

Lusk aggressively takes the techno-optimist side of our sustainability dilemma. To the Malthusian believers in population pressure and limits to growth, he argues that human innovation has always allowed us to adapt our way out of these problems, so that “we now get more than 500 percent more corn and 280 percent more wheat per acre of planted farmland than we did a century ago.” Historically, Lusk is correct (although there have certainly been local environmental collapses and unintended consequences). Nevertheless, in a world of complex linkages in ecosystems that we do not fully understand yet depend on for our every breath, our every gulp of clean water, our every bite, we are likely on the verge of dangerous thresholds. Lusk has only begun to account for the extent of our sustainability crisis.

I do have to agree with Lusk that some proponents of local and organic food are naïve in the archetypal vilification of big agriculture and romanticizing of the small. I have zero desire to work the land myself, and am delighted at the lush variety our food system makes available. Still, I would have liked to see Lusk deal more extensively with major critiques of our current agriculture system—that it relies on monocultures, undercutting biodiversity; that the use of artificial fertilizers is slowly impoverishing our topsoil; that giant food companies push fat, sugar, and salt, as well as excessive meat consumption, regardless of the impact on our bodies and on the environment. Not that Lusk ignores these matters; he openly states that “[b]eneath the tranquil calm of diverse, healthy, affordable food runs an undercurrent of obesity, diabetes, food insecurity, climate change, and environmental degradation.” This frank sentence reveals a contradiction—if food is healthy, how can it lead to obesity and diabetes; if it is diverse, why does it cause environmental degradation? Lusk deals with these issues only in partial, fragmented ways. His optimistic answers, and portraits of food scientists and executives, are often incomplete, ignoring the full complexity of these difficult challenges.

Lusk effectively deconstructs the idea of completely natural foods, pointing out that everything we eat, even from an organic farm, is the product of hundreds or thousands of years of unnatural selection: “Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, and kale didn’t exist before humans came along. All these veggies are descendants of the same plant, and they originated through artificial selection.” True enough, and it is plausible that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are simply the next step in this human-created evolution. Indeed, Lusk argues, the oft-vilified GMOs are not only able to create super foods but to save the environment by allowing no-till farming with greatly reduced pesticide use.

Yet, as our ability to alter the genetics of the biosphere increases, we must also beware of unintended consequences. This is the thinking behind the precautionary principle, that we need to err on the side of caution before taking risks, that the burden of proof is on the side of those purveying new technology and products. In a world of increasing desires, where great environmental benefits might come from certain new agricultural products, this might be too high a standard. We might need to take risks to get crucial benefits. However, Lusk does not fully grapple with the complexity of these tradeoffs, failing to lay out what he thinks the standard should be for allowing new technology and why. He also neglects the tendency toward monocultures, mainly corn and soy planted in vast acreage beyond what nature would ever allow for any single species—although he does point to the increasing use of cover crops. A GMO revolution that planted multitudinous new species—or, rather, variations on old ones—might be far better than what we have today. Even here, though, it possible that one or more of the new strains could become an invasive species doing unintended harm, as, for instance, seems to be  <http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2016/03/gmo-linked-herbicide-may-doom-monarch-butterflies> happening to monarch butterflies, albeit in combination with pesticide use.

Nonetheless, Lusk convincingly argues for several important gains from GMOs in feeding a hungry world. He points to “the science of breeding crops to increase nutritional content,” for instance in orange-fleshed sweet potatoes and golden rice, which have tremendous potential to increase the health of the poorest people, particularly subsistence farmers. Contrarily, he cites a study that “the now decades-long delay in approving golden rice has resulted in 600,000 to 1.2 million additional cases of blindness.” It is hard to argue here against the idea that the precautionary principle can be taken too far, that we need to account for the tremendous benefits these some foods can produce and accept a degree of risk. Where to draw the balance is a much trickier question.

Responding to animal-rights activists, Lusk writes that GMOs can allow more humane food production. “Some applications of synthetic biology,” he says, “are meant to get bacteria or algae or yeast, which do not feel pain or suffering, to produce proteins and fats that we typically take from animals, who suffer when they are improperly housed or cared for.” The appeal of the natural can conflict with the appeal for better treatment of animals. And synthetically derived protein can have a far smaller environmental footprint than that taken from animals. This is even more starkly apparent in the potential for growing meat in a laboratory, which is already occurring, albeit not yet at a competitive price. Still, it is becoming possible to say that “no animals were harmed in the making of this meat.”

Indeed, according to Lusk, modern farming has already led to environmental benefits in that “growth promoters, such as added hormones, in beef cattle have significantly lowered carbon emissions, water use, and animal waste,” with perhaps a 16% decline in carbon emissions from production of beef. Because people seem predisposed to love meat, Lusk argues, it is unrealistic to say that large numbers can simply go vegetarian. I must take issue with him here, as he does not seem to understand the nature of the environmental challenge, that we need to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050, so a 16% efficiency improvement is not nearly enough. Despite major efficiency gains, we simply need to eat less meat, particularly beef. It is not an either/or proposition—we do not all need to go fully vegetarian. Yet most Americans simply must reduce meat consumption, not only for the environment but for their health in a country riddled with obesity and type-2 diabetes. And societal standards do and have changed, as vegetarianism and veganism become increasingly accepted. Having meatless days and adding only small amounts of meat for flavor can still result in wonderfully tasty diets, particularly with the variety of foods now available. Given the propensity of developing countries to consume meat in huge quantities as a sign of status, we simply need to change the social norms around eating.

Along with GMOs that use less water, pesticides, and artificial fertilizer, Lusk points to precision farming as an under-recognized revolution that is already allowing tremendous gains in increasing yield while protecting the environment. For over 50 years, it has paid off for farmers to apply large amounts of fertilizer to ensure maximum yield, even though much of this ends up as a “flow of excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and herbicides from fields into underground drinking water and into streams and rivers.” Global positioning systems (GPSs) and the Internet, however, now allow farmers to apply exactly the right amount of fertilizer and pesticides to specific areas, sometimes even to specific plants (in much the same way this technology has greatly enhanced urban transit). Precision farming already “reduces fertilizer use by 10 percent to 80 percent,” while decreasing “herbicide use by about 50 percent.” If traditional small farmers knew their land intimately and could apply just the right amount of fertilizer, precision farming allows large farmers to do this at the scale needed to feed a growing population without returning huge numbers of people to arduous labor on the land. Lusk adds that Walmart, for instance, has used information technology to greatly improve food safety; indeed, that farmers’ markets pose a much greater risk of contamination than do modern groceries. Lusk is almost certainly right here, yet again does not fully discuss the trade-offs, that farmers’ market food is often tastier, might contain more healthful ingredients, and is likely better for maintaining healthy soil. He does, however, acknowledge the benefit of actually meeting the farmer that grows your food.

To the dilemma of what direction to take our food systems, I believe the solution will often be to implement a system that combines elements of factory farming and humane, local farming, integrating the best of both. Lusk asks if we can find “a middle ground? An innovative solution?” Reacting to criticism of brutal conditions for hens, he points out that outdoor hens are susceptible to disease. As an alternative, he discusses “enriched cages that included furnishings like perches, scratching areas, and nesting areas.” As an enthusiastic eater of eggs, but one who has started buying free range out of concern about factory-farm conditions, I can endorse this solution (although there are undoubtedly some animal-rights activists who are not so disposed). However, I wish that Lusk had more systematically discussed the possibility of such a middle ground in a variety of situations, had further acknowledged the necessity of responding to critiques from the local and organic food movements.

In a world of complex tradeoffs and novel decisions with tremendous implications for future welfare, such “middle ground” solutions may become the new norm (although, of course, every situation is different). If local-food advocates have spawned a revolution that has done tremendous good in promoting more healthful food for both individuals and for the environment, it is also true that at least some of them can be naïve and extreme. We are not going to solve all our problems with small, local solutions. Nor is big agriculture always the villain it is portrayed to be. Lusk approving quotes a food researcher, “[p]eople in the food industry are good people” who “want to do the right thing.” Often, this is undoubtedly true; yet it is also the case that many food-company executives look first at the bottom line, for instance in selling sugary drinks to developing countries regardless of health impact. To remedy such situations, it is vital to have watchdog groups and outside agitators point out the problems of the food industry and push it to do better. And stricter regulations will also be needed for those free-riders who refuse to integrate health and environmental concerns into their business models. Already, the local and organic food movement has spurred changes that are making even the largest of agricultural conglomerates provide tastier, healthier, more humane, and more environmentally friendly food. In this regard, Lusk provides one side of a debate that, ultimately, helps us all.

  _____  

 

 

 

 Ethan Goffman

 

  _____  

Ethan Goffman is Associate Editor of  <http://sspp.proquest.com/> Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy. His publications have appeared in  <http://earthtalk.org/> Earthtalk,  <http://www.emagazine.com/author/egoffman/> E: The Environmental Magazine, Grist, and elsewhere. He is the author of Imagining Each Other: Blacks and Jews in Contemporary American Literature (State University of New York Press, 2000) and co-editor of The New York Public Intellectuals and Beyond (Purdue University Press, 2009) and Politics and the Intellectual: Conversations with Irving Howe (Purdue University Press, 2010). From 2009 to 2014, Ethan was Transit Chair of the Montgomery County (Maryland) Chapter of the Sierra Club and he currently serves as the organization's Bicycle Liaison.

  <http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/pdUVu/~4/1UTWEVDA1gw?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> 

 	
			

 




-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13331 - Release Date: 11/01/16

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bcfsn.org/pipermail/food_bcfsn.org/attachments/20161101/86cf8abb/attachment.html>