1 Intersectionality Activity Guide Broadening th

1
Intersectionality Activity Guide:
Broadening the focus of feminism. Explain how specific
populations of women
challenged white, middle class feminists to address
Intersectionality (the ways in which
a person’s multiple identities interconnect to impact a person’s
experience as well as
how institutions and systems influence power and privilege
based upon multiple
identities).
Use the Week 16 Module Resources and Chapters 11 and 12 of
Through Women’s Eyes,
to complete the following guide. The guide is intended to help
focus on key concepts
and will not be submitted. It also duplicates many of the
questions in the Chapter 11
Reading Guide.
Explain intersectionality:

Lesbian Activism and Sexual Politics:
African American Women’s Influence:
Latinx Activism and Influence:
Asian American Women’s Influence:
2
Native American Women’s Influence:
Women’s Influence in the Disability Rights Movement:

By the 1970s and 1980s, how inclusive was the women’s
movement and how effectively
did it address the multidimensional nature of women’s
inequality and obstacles in the
path to equality?
What were the most severe obstacles blocking women’s path
toward equality in the late
twentieth- and early twenty-first-centuries?
What were the most significant accomplishments women
achieved in the struggle for
equality in the late twentieth- and early twenty-first centuries?
4 Sustaining Our Agricultural Resources
branex/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
• Describe the origins and history of agriculture.
• Compare and contrast modern, industrialized agriculture with
traditional agriculture.
• Explain what constitutes healthy soil and how it affects plant
life.
• Describe the impact of chemical pesticides on the
environment.
• Describe the impact of synthetic fertilizers on the
environment.
• Describe the ways industrialized agriculture is dependent on
water and fossil fuels.
• Analyze how animal production and concentrated animal
feeding operations create
environmental problems.
• Describe how sustainable farming strategies differ from
unsustainable ones.
• Evaluate the choices you can make to promote sustainable
agriculture practices.
• Outline some high-tech, sustainable farming techniques.
• Describe the arguments for and against genetically modified
organisms.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or
redistribution.
100
Section 4.1 The Origins and History of Agriculture

In October 2018 the scientific journal Nature published a major
research report that pre-
sented a troubling picture of the future of food, agriculture, and
the environment (Spring-
mann et al., 2018). The authors of the report—including
scientists from the United States,
Europe, and Australia—argue that, based on current trends, we
will see an increase of 50% to
90% in the negative environmental impacts of food production
by the year 2050.
Their prediction is based on three key factors. First, as
presented in Chapter 3, global popu-
lation is expected to increase from roughly 7.7 billion people
today to almost 10 billion by
2050. Second, the demand for food is actually growing faster
than the population is, as ris-
ing incomes in countries like China result in more demand for
meat and other animal pro-
teins, which require more resources to produce. And third,
current agricultural practices are
already a significant contributor to major environmental
problems like deforestation, air and
water pollution, and global climate change.
The Nature report used the planetary boundaries concept
described in Chapter 2 to argue
that we need to change the way we produce, distribute, and
consume food if we are to feed
10 billion people and not ravage the environment. We already
use half of Earth’s ice-free
land surface for grazing livestock and growing crops to feed
animals, and 77% of the Earth’s
land surface has already been developed or modified by human
activities, up from just 15%

a century ago. Every year, more and more forests, including
biodiversity-rich tropical rain
forests, are cleared for agriculture. Agriculture uses roughly
70% of global freshwater sup-
plies. Meanwhile, roughly one third of global food production
ends up being discarded as
waste each year. This last fact is especially troubling, given that
roughly 3 billion people are
malnourished and that 1 billion suffer from outright food
scarcity and shortages.
Given these trends, and given the fact that agriculture and food
production are essential
human activities, the Nature report focuses on the need to
reduce the environmental impact
of current agricultural practices. This chapter will contrast the
unsustainable approaches
to agriculture, which currently dominate, with sustainable
approaches that we will need to
adopt in the decades ahead. It starts with a brief review of the
origins and history of agricul-
ture and how it has shaped human history through time. This is
followed by a review of the
basics of soil, climate, and plant growth. We then examine how
current agricultural practices
are affecting the environment and why these practices are not
sustainable. This is followed
by a discussion of sustainable agricultural practices, including
ideas presented in the Nature
report, designed to help us stay within key planetary
boundaries. Finally, the chapter will
explore the somewhat controversial issue of genetic engineering
and genetically modified
organisms.
4.1 The Origins and History of Agriculture

As discussed in Chapter 3, most of human history occurred
during what could be called the
preagricultural period. Modern humans, or Homo sapiens, have
been in existence for roughly
250,000 years, and for 95% of that period, they relied mainly on
hunting and gathering to
meet their needs for food and sustenance.
redistribution.
101
The Beginnings of Agriculture
Beginning about 10,000 years ago, however, human societies
started to develop and rely
on agriculture to meet their needs for food and sustenance.
Agriculture is an approach to
land management designed to grow domesticated plants and
raise domesticated animals
for food, fuel, and fiber. Anthropologists believe that this
transition from hunter-gatherer to
crop domestication and cultivation occurred for a couple of
reasons. First, the climate was
going through a natural warming cycle after a period of
glaciation, and warmer and wetter
conditions were more conducive to agriculture. Second,
population growth among hunter–
gatherer communities may have reached a point at which wild
food sources were becoming
scarce. Crop domestication and agriculture allowed these

communities to grow more food on
a given amount of land, and the first crops that were
domesticated were easy to grow, dry, and
store. Early agriculturists also began to settle in specific
locations and to domesticate animals
like dogs, goats, sheep, and pigs. Eventually, these more settled
communities grew into small
villages and even cities, and over the next 8,000 years, the
human population of the planet
grew from a few million to hundreds of millions of people.
Beyond crop selection and plant and animal domestication,
other developments and tech-
nological advances helped increase agricultural productivity
over time. The domestication
of cattle was soon followed by the invention of the plow,
allowing early farmers to cultivate
more land using less human energy. Evidence of irrigation—the
deliberate diversion of
water to crops—dates back at least 5,000 years, and this helped
expand the area under culti-
vation. Improvements in metal production, crop storage, and
transportation also contributed
to increased agricultural productivity over thousands of years.
Despite these developments, however, agriculture in the year
1500, 1600, or 1700 would
have looked similar to what was being practiced 2,000 to 3,000
years before that. Increased
land under cultivation allowed for more food production and
population growth, but these
increases occurred slowly over centuries and millennia.
The Modernization of Agriculture
That situation began to change around the begin-
ning of the industrial period, roughly 200 years

ago. The world population was hitting the 1 billion
mark, and the Reverend Thomas Malthus argued
that human population was growing faster than
food production. The result, Malthus predicted,
would be increasing starvation, famine, and dis-
ease, as well as social collapse, as human num-
bers outstripped food supply. However, despite
some devastating famines in places like Ireland
and India, food production was generally able to
keep up with a growing population. New lands
that had been colonized were put into agricultural
production (especially in the Americas), and the
invention of agricultural machinery made farming
more efficient.
summersetretrievers/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Early farming machines, such as the
steam-driven thresher pictured here,
changed agricultural practices during
the Industrial Revolution.
redistribution.
102
At the same time, scientific advances in fields like chemistry,
plant genetics, and soil science
boosted crop productivity per unit of land. In particular,
breakthroughs in the production of
synthetic fertilizer in the late 19th century, especially in the
production of nitrogen fertilizer

on an industrial scale, enabled continued increases in food
production. Fertilizers are sub-
stances that add nutrients to the soil, thereby encouraging plant
growth. While traditional
farmers had long made use of available organic material for
fertilizer, it’s estimated that with-
out the development, mass production, and use of synthetic
nitrogen fertilizers, the world’s
population would never have exceeded 4 billion (Smil, 1997).
The Green Revolution
By the 1960s world population had reached 3 billion people,
and another 1 billion were being
added every 12 to 14 years. Massive famines in China, sub-
Saharan Africa, and southern Asia
claimed millions of lives and led to a return of Malthusian
thinking about population and food
security, whereby everyone has access to an adequate and
reliable food supply. It was at this
time that ecologist Paul Ehrlich published The Population
Bomb, warning of mass starvation
and upheaval due to human population growth. However, a
series of advances in agricultural
production that came to be known as the Green Revolution also
occurred.
The Green Revolution was not the result of a single scientific
breakthrough or technological
development but rather the collective result of a number of
changes in the way humans grew
food. Plant breeders developed new, high-yielding varieties of
wheat, rice, and corn that pro-
duced as much as four times the amount of grain per acre as
conventional varieties. Expanded
use of irrigation systems, synthetic fertilizer, and chemical
herbicides and pesticides allowed

farmers to grow even more crops on the same fields. The results
of these changes were dra-
matic. From 1960 to 2014 global production of the five main
cereal crops—corn, rice, wheat,
barley, and sorghum—increased by an estimated 280% and
yields by an estimated 175%,
while the land area devoted to cereal production increased by
only 16% (Ritchie, 2017).
The Challenges of Today
Today we may need another Green Revolution to keep up with
continued population growth,
changes in diet, and the environmental impacts of modern,
industrialized approaches to agri-
culture. The impressive increases in yield achieved in the first
few decades of the Green Revo-
lution have begun to level off. At the same time, we continue to
add roughly 75 million new
people to the planet each year. Perhaps more importantly, many
of the agricultural practices
that emerged during the Green Revolution—including the heavy
use of irrigation, synthetic
fertilizers, and chemical pesticides—are taking a severe toll on
the environment.
Rapid advances in science and technology have allowed us to
feed a population that has
grown from 1 billion to over 7.7 billion in just 200 years.
However, there is overwhelming
evidence that our current approaches to feeding the world are
pushing us close to or beyond
planetary boundaries and environmental limits. Clearly, feeding
the world as human popula-
tion reaches 8, 9, or 10 billion will require a change if we are to
once again avoid the worst
Malthusian predictions of the past.

redistribution.
103
Section 4.2 Characteristics of Industrial Agriculture
4.2 Characteristics of Industrial Agriculture
The Green Revolution ushered in what is now known as
industrial agriculture. These indus-
trialized approaches have enabled food production to keep pace
with population growth, but
they differ in fundamental ways from the traditional farming
practices that were in place
for almost 10,000 years. To better understand the environmental
impacts of industrialized
agriculture and identify more sustainable alternatives to
farming, it’s instructive to com-
pare industrial agriculture with what is known as traditional
agriculture. Agriculture is a
necessary part of human civilization, and the challenge will be
to combine the technological
advances of industrialized agriculture with the sustainable
practices of traditional agricul-
ture to feed a growing human population.
Linear
First, whereas traditional agricultural practices are based on
cyclical systems common in
nature, industrial farming is highly linear and modeled on
industrial systems. Industrial agri-
culture is sometimes referred to as “factory farming” because it

is focused mainly on inputs
(pesticides, fertilizers, seeds, water) and outputs (corn, wheat,
soybeans, meat). The primary
goals are to increase production and yield while decreasing
costs of production.
A traditional farm will likely raise a variety
of crops and be home to animals like horses,
cows, pigs, chickens, goats, and so on. These
animals’ waste products in the form of
manure are used as fertilizer on crops, some
of those crops are fed to animals, and the
cycle begins again.
In contrast, an industrial farm will likely
focus on raising a single crop. The farmers
“import”—rather than generate on their
own farms—seeds, fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, water, and energy for equipment
to grow that crop. In the United States and
other developed countries, much of the pro-
duction from these types of farms is soy and
corn that is then fed to animals (mainly cows, chickens, and
pigs). The animals are then fed to
people, and waste products from both the animal production
facilities and people are treated
in sewage treatment facilities before finally ending up in water
bodies (in the case of liquids)
or landfills (in the case of solids). After that, the farmer goes
back and “imports” a whole new
set of inputs to start the process all over again.
Designed to Maximize Output
Second, whereas traditional agriculture focuses on the
production of a wide variety of crops,
animals, and other products, industrialized farming is designed

to maximize the output of a
narrow range of crops.
fotokostic/iStock/Getty Images Plus
While traditional farms grow a variety of
crops, industrial farms almost always raise one
single crop.
redistribution.
104
Section 4.2 Characteristics of Industrial Agriculture
A diversity of crops and animals, sometimes referred to as
polyculture farming, better
assures the farm family of meeting its needs. At the same time,
as will be discussed later in
the chapter, this diversity mimics natural systems and is thus
better for the environment.
Traditional farming also generally includes the management of
some trees, a practice known
as agroforestry. Trees provide fuel, fruit, nuts, building
material, and help with on-farm water
retention and management.
In contrast, nearly all large-scale agriculture today is based on
planting a single crop over
large areas of land to maximize productivity. Whereas in the
past a typical farm might pro-
duce as many as 10 different agricultural products for market,
today a farm is more likely to
grow a single crop like corn or soybeans. Agricultural

mechanization combined with heavy
inputs of agricultural chemicals allows a single farmer to grow
the same crop on thousands
of acres of land, something that would have been unimaginable
just a few generations ago.
This kind of agriculture, known as monoculture farming, raises
a number of concerns. The
overreliance on a small number of genetically similar crop
varieties increases the risk that a
widespread insect infestation, crop disease, or fungal infecti on
could wipe out a major global
food source. In addition, large-scale monoculture farming tends
to reduce the number of
farmers and farm families living in rural areas. Some observers
have associated this phenom-
enon with the loss of community and economic diversity in
these areas (Union of Concerned
Scientists, 2019).
Reliant on External Inputs
Finally, whereas traditional agriculture tends to be self-
sustaining, industrialized farming is
heavily reliant on external inputs to survive. Today’s industrial
farmers depend on chemical
pesticides and herbicides to control insects and weeds and must
apply increasing amounts of
synthetic fertilizers to maintain crop yields. Industrial farmers
also require large amounts of
water and fossil fuel energy resources. The environmental
impact of these realities will be the
focus of much of this chapter, and the chapter will also explore
how ideas and practices from
traditional agriculture can be incorporated into modern farming
to make it more sustainable.
Table 4.1 offers a brief comparison of industrial and traditional

agriculture.
Table 4.1: Industrial vs. traditional agriculture
Industrial Traditional
Focuses on maximizing yield (monoculture) Focuses on a
diversity of species and products
(polyculture)
Results in higher rates of soil erosion and land
degradation
Maintains soil quality and long-term soil health
Relies on synthetic fertilizers and chemical
pesticides
Relies on organic fertilizers and natural approaches
to pest management
Requires heavy use of irrigated water Minimizes water use by
matching crops to regional
climate
Heavily uses fossil fuels Uses minimal fossil fuels
redistribution.
105
Section 4.3 The Importance of Soil

4.3 The Importance of Soil
When most people think of the term soil, they automatically
think dirt. And for most people,
dirt is considered useless and something to be avoided whenever
possible. In reality, soil is
much more than dirt, and it is soil that forms the foundation of
virtually all land-based food
production around the world. Because soil health is so critical
to agriculture, sustainable agri-
culture almost always implies sustainable management of soils.
Traditional farming practices
tend to carefully manage soil fertility to ensure the ability to
grow crops year after year. How-
ever, industrialized farming tends to depend on inputs of
synthetic fertilizers to compensate
for declining soil quality.
What Is Soil?
Soil generally consists of five components:
1. mineral matter (sand, gravel, silt, and clay)
2. dead organic material (e.g., decaying leaves and plant matter)
3. soil fauna and flora (living bacteria, worms, fungi, and
insects)
4. water
5. air
Variations in the levels of these components lead to many
different types of soils and soil
conditions. Soils that are sandy drain quickly, whereas soils
with high clay content hold water
and become sticky. Soils with high levels of organic matter tend
to be soft and good for plants,
whereas compacted soils with few air spaces are less conducive
to plant growth. High levels

of soil fauna and flora are also generally better able to support
plant growth, since these liv-
ing organisms help decompose dead organic matter and make
nutrients available to plants.
Most people are surprised that there can be so many living
organisms in soil. Far from being
lifeless dirt, a small handful of soil can contain millions of
bacteria and thousands of fungi
and algae (Ingham, 2019). Soils are also habitat for earthworms,
ants, mites, sow bugs, centi-
pedes, and other decomposers that make nutrients available to
plants.
Because soils consist of both living organisms and nonliving
material that interact to form
a more complex whole, they meet the definition of an
ecosystem. When we think of soils as
ecosystems in and of themselves, we can begin to see why many
of the agricultural practices
discussed later in the chapter are not sustainable. Soil
compaction from heavy farm machin-
ery, regular plowing and manipulation of soils, heavy
applications of synthetic fertilizers and
chemical herbicides and pesticides, and overuse of irrigation all
undermine long-term soil
health and threaten the future of agriculture.
redistribution.
106

How Is Soil Made?
New soils can form over time and thus might be considered a
renewable resource. However,
because soil formation is such a slow process, it might be better
to think of soils as a finite,
limited resource. Soil formation occurs primarily as a result of
two basic processes: weather-
ing and the deposition and decomposition of organic matter
such as leaves.
Weathering is the process of larger rocks being worn away or
broken down into smaller par-
ticles by physical, chemical, and biological forces. Physical
weathering occurs through wind,
rain, and the expansion and contraction of rocks due to changes
in temperature. Chemical
weathering is caused when water, gases, or other substances
chemically interact with larger
rocks and break them apart. Biological weathering is caused by
living organisms, such as
when tree roots grow and grind against rocks.
The deposition and decomposition of organic matter occurs
when living organisms drop
waste or debris or die. When animals deposit waste or when
plants shed leaves and branches,
this organic material gets added to the soil. Likewise, when
plants, animals, and other living
organisms die and drop to the ground, decomposers and
detritivores break them down and
incorporate that organic material into the soil.
The processes of weathering and deposition and decomposition
are influenced mainly by
climate, topography, and time, allowing soils to form faster in

some locations than in others.
For example, an inch of new soil can take 50 to 100 years to
develop in a healthy grassland
ecosystem, whereas the same inch of soil might take 100,000
years to develop in a desert or
tundra ecosystem.
Soil scientists recognize that soil develops into distinct layers,
and they refer to each of these
layers as a soil horizon. For our purposes, we can consider five
different soil horizons: O, A,
B, C, and D. The O (organic) horizon is at the very top and is
made up of decomposing plant
matter and animal waste that is sometimes referred to as humus.
Below this is the A horizon,
which is made up of organic matter and mineral particles.
The A horizon is where most of the living soil organisms reside,
and the upper portions of
the A horizon are generally referred to as topsoil. Most plant
roots are established in the A
horizon, which is why soil health is often based on the
condition of topsoil.
Below the A horizon is the B horizon, also known as subsoil,
and below that is the C horizon,
which consists of weathered rock. Finally, the D horizon is
known as bedrock (see Figure 4.1).
redistribution.
107

Figure 4.1: Soil horizons
Farmers are most concerned with the fertility of the topsoil, or
A horizon.
IkonStudio/iStock/Getty Images Plus
redistribution.
108
Section 4.4 The Problem of Chemical Pesticides
Soil and Plant Life
Soil conditions have a lot to do with their ability to support
plant life and agriculture, and the
term soil fertility defines those conditions. Among the most
important factors influencing
soil fertility are nutrient levels, soil pH (a measure of the
acidity or alkalinity of soil), and soil
structure.
We know from Chapter 2 that nutrients like phosphorous and
nitrogen can be limiting factors
in plant growth. The amount of these and other nutrients in soils
is dependent in part on the
amount of organic material that is deposited and decomposed in
that area. This is why the
living organisms (e.g., bacteria, fungi, worms) that are found in
soil—and act as decompos-
ers—are so important to soil fertility.

Soil pH is determined by many factors, including the amount of
organic material added to
soils, the mineral composition of soil particles, and temperature
and precipitation levels in
that area. Some plants thrive in more acidic soils, whereas
others do better in soils that are
less acidic or even alkaline. Farmers utilize different soil
additives to make soils more or less
acidic, depending on the type of crops they want to grow.
Lastly, soil structure refers to how much air is in the soil or
how compact it is. Plant roots
and the living soil fauna and flora that improve soil fertility
need oxygen and other gases
to survive, so well-aerated soils tend to be better for plant
growth. In contrast, when soils
are compacted or compressed, such as through repeated pressure
from tractors and heavy
farm equipment, they tend to become less aerated and less
conducive to plant growth. Highly
compacted soils also decrease the ability of water to infiltrate
and enter the ground, and as
this water runs off the surface, it can carry soil with it. The
displacement of this valuable
resource—often caused by water or wind—is known as soil
erosion.
4.4 The Problem of Chemical Pesticides
For as long as humans have farmed, they have had to contend
with crop damage and compe-
tition from insects, fungus, and weeds. Early agriculturists made
some use of chemicals like
sulfur—as well as salt, smoke, and other deterrents—to ward off
pests, but for the most part,

traditional farming relied on more passive approaches to
minimize crop loss. For example,
by growing a variety of crops and rotating where those crops are
grown on the farm, tra-
ditional agriculturists created conditions that were not as
favorable for the outbreak and
growth of pest populations. Likewise, traditional polyculture
farming tends to promote and
provide habitat for pest predators like spiders, beetles,
predatory mites, and mantids like
the praying mantis that feed on pests that can damage crops.
On the other hand, monoculture farming creates ideal conditions
for pest and weed infesta-
tions. Because most insect pests are crop specific, and because
monoculture farming grows
the same crop season after season over large areas of land,
insect pests are able to establish
and spread in large numbers.
Agricultural pests are organisms that damage or consume crops
intended for human use.
Agricultural weeds are plants that compete with crops. Of
course, weeds and pests don’t
redistribution.
109
necessarily see it this way, because they are
living organisms attempting to survive. Nev-

ertheless, weeds compete with agricultural
crops for sunlight, water, and nutrients, and
pests can damage or destroy plant roots,
stems, leaves, flowers, and fruit. As a result,
industrialized agriculture makes use of a
wide variety and a large quantity of chemi-
cals to control weeds and pests. Insecticides
kill insects, and herbicides kill weeds. There
are also fungicides that kill fungus, as well as
rodenticides that kill rodents. These chemi-
cals are collectively known as pesticides.
The agricultural chemical industry has
developed thousands of pesticides in the past 50 to 60 years,
and it’s estimated that we apply
close to 454 million kilograms (1 billion pounds) of pesticides
in the United States each year
(Alavanja, 2009). Roughly 80% of this pesticide is applied to
farm fields, with the other 20%
applied to backyard lawns, gardens, golf courses, and parks. It’s
also estimated that over 95%
of all corn and soybean crops planted in the United States are
treated with herbicides each
year (Wechsler & Fernandez-Cornejo, 2016), whereas cotton is
probably the most intensive
user of chemical insecticides (Cubie, 2006).
Biomagnification
One of the earliest chemical pesticides to come into widespread
use was a compound known
as dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, or DDT. First developed
in the late 1930s, DDT was seen
to be an inexpensive, stable, and highly effective insecticide
that was also relatively nontoxic
to humans and other mammals. Because DDT was a broad-
spectrum insecticide, meaning it

could kill a wide variety of insects, it quickly became popular
among farmers for controlling
crop pests, as well as mosquitoes and household insect pests.
After more than a decade of widespread use, however, in the
1950s it began to become appar-
ent that DDT might be causing unintended environmental
consequences. Because DDT is a
long-lived and stable compound, it gradually built up in soils
and water bodies. Because DDT
is fat soluble and attaches itself to body fats when ingested, it
was also building up in popula-
tions of wild fish, birds, reptiles, and other organisms.
This poses a particular problem for animals near the top of the
food chain. For example, DDT
sprayed on agricultural fields will eventually flow into streams
or lakes, where it could be
ingested by tiny zooplankton. These organisms are then eaten by
small fish, thereby accu-
mulating all the DDT in the zooplankton. Small fish are then
eaten by larger fish that are then
eaten by birds of prey, like falcons, bald eagles, and pelicans.
Recall from Chapter 2 that only about 10% of the energy
consumed at one trophic level is
available to the next level. This means that birds of prey, l ike
the bald eagle, have to eat a lot
of fish to have sufficient energy. As birds eat, the DDT in fish
becomes more and more concen-
trated in the birds.
fotokostic/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Industrial agriculture relies heavily on
pesticides to ward off pests.

redistribution.
110
The increasing concentration of a chemical pesticide at higher
levels of the food chain is
known as biomagnification. By the late 1950s and early 1960s,
populations of birds of prey
were declining dramatically, and the cause was linked to high
concentrations of DDT. It turns
out that DDT was not killing the birds outright but rather
altering the way calcium was metab-
olized in their bodies. This resulted in a thinning of bird
eggshells and low survival rates
for chicks. The 1962 publication of the book Silent Spring by
ecologist Rachel Carson drew
attention to this unfolding disaster and eventually helped lead to
the banning of DDT in most
developed countries.
Resistance
Today the agricultural chemical industry has learned some
lessons from the experience with
DDT. Newer varieties of pesticides are designed to be short
lived and less stable in the envi-
ronment so that they break down quickly after use. They are
also designed to be more tar-
geted at specific species and applied at specific times when
target pests are most vulnerable.
Nevertheless, a number of other environmental problems still
remain with widespread pes-

ticide use.
First, because insects breed rapidly, they can develop genetic
resistance to insecticides within
a relatively short time. In other words, the insecticide will wipe
out most of the pests ini-
tially—but the ones that survived will multiply, and the
insecticide will become less effective
with each successive generation (see Figure 4.2). Likewise,
weeds can also develop resistance
to herbicides over time. Heavy applications of chemical
pesticides will initially help control
insects and weeds, but over time they prove less and less
effective as these organisms develop
a resistance.
It’s estimated that since the start of widespread chemical
pesticide use in the late 1940s, over
500 species of insects (Gut, Schilder, Isaacs, & McManus,
2015) and 500 species of weeds
(Heap, 2019) have developed chemical resistance, prompting
what is known as pest resur-
gence. Farmers are then forced into what some call a “pesticide
treadmill” or a “pesticide
arms race” and must spend money on either larger doses of
pesticides or new varieties of the
chemicals. And despite the fact that synthetic pesticide use has
seen a 50-fold increase since
1950 and that today’s pesticides are 10 to 100 times more toxic
to pests than those used in
the past (Roser & Ritchie, n.d.; Gross, 2019), it’s estimated that
we still lose over 40% of major
crops to pests and crop diseases each year—a higher proportion
than in 1950 (Elliott, 2015;
Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014).

redistribution.
111
Figure 4.2: Pesticide resistance
Pests can develop resistance to pesticides over time. In this
figure, the red bugs are the resistant
individuals. Notice how, with each subsequent generation, the
number of resistant pests increase.
Eventually, the entire population will be resistant.
Based on “Managing the Community of Pests and Beneficials,”
by L.Gut, A. Schilder, R. Isaacs, and P. McManus, in J. Landis
and J. Sanchez
(Eds.), Fruit Crop Ecology and Management, 2002, East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
First generation Second generation
Pesticide
application
After pesticide
application
Pesticide
application
Pests
reproduce

After pesticide
application
Time
P
e
s
t
p
o
p
u
la
ti
o
n
Pesticide
application
Pesticide
application
Pesticide
application
redistribution.

112
Threat to Biodiversity
Another major environmental problem
associated with the widespread use of
chemical pesticides in agriculture is the
impact these chemicals have on nontarget
species and biodiversity. The case of DDT
and its impact on birds like the bald eagle
was an early and high-profile example of
this problem. Today there continue to be
concerns over the impact of pesticides on
natural predators, other wildlife, and bio-
diversity generally, even if it doesn’t involve
a species as well known as the bald eagle.
Some of the nontarget species whose popu-
lations are reduced or eliminated by chemi-
cal insecticides include the spiders, beetles,
and mantids that help control insect pests
in traditional agricultural systems.
One particular area of concern involves the impacts that some
pesticides appear to be hav-
ing on bee colonies around the world. A newer class of chemical
compounds developed in
the 1990s known as neonicotinoid pesticides are now the most
widely used form of insec-
ticides globally. These chemicals appear to be responsible for
significant declines in honey-
bee populations in agricultural regions and for the complete
collapse of honeybee colonies
through a process known as “colony collapse disorder.” This
development is a significant

concern because honeybees provide a critical ecosystem
function by pollinating many major
vegetable and fruit crops, including tomatoes, peppers, apples,
and almonds. In addition to
impacting honeybees, neonicotinoid pesticides appear to be
negatively affecting a variety of
bird and fish species as well.
Threat to Human Health
Lastly, chemical pesticides can pose a threat to human health.
The World Health Organization
(WHO) estimates that every year, at least 3 million agricultural
workers are directly poisoned
through improper handling of and exposure to chemical
pesticides, which results in over
250,000 deaths a year (WHO, n.d.a). Every year, the
Environmental Working Group (EWG)
publishes a Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, which
estimates levels of pesticide
residues found on fruits and vegetables sold in grocery stores
around the United States. The
2019 EWG list ranked strawberries, spinach, kale, nectarines,
apples, grapes, peaches, cher-
ries, pears, tomatoes, celery, and potatoes as the “di rty dozen”
in terms of levels of pesticide
residues (EWG, 2019a). While the link between exposure to
pesticide residues from food and
cancer or other health problems is complicated, a number of
studies suggest that people with
less exposure have fewer of these problems (Baudry et al.,
2018; Chiu et al., 2018).
It’s also estimated that well over 90% of chemical pesticides
sprayed on crops never reach the
target insects they were intended for (Duke, 2017). Instead, they
drift through the air, run off

into streams and lakes, or seep into groundwater—water found
underground in soil or in the
iStock/Thinkstock
Pesticides can harm nontarget species, such
as the praying mantis, reducing their numbers
and creating unforeseen environmental
consequences.
redistribution.
113
Section 4.5 The Problem of Synthetic Fertilizers and Poor Soil
Management
pores and crevices of rock. These chemicals can then be inhaled
by people or ingested through
drinking water. Agricultural chemicals like glyphosate (trade
name Roundup), malathion, and
atrazine have been found in municipal water supplies and in
private wells, especially in heav-
ily agricultural areas. These and other chemicals have been
linked to human health problems
such as infertility, low sperm count, and prostate and testicular
cancers.
Overall, chemical pesticides have become a virtual necessity in
industrialized agriculture
because of the perfect conditions created for pests and weeds in
monoculture farming. How-
ever, the heavy use of these chemicals is proving less effective
over time as insect pests and

weeds develop greater resistance to them. Furthermore,
herbicides and pesticides are having
negative impacts on nontarget species of animals and are also
implicated in a variety of nega-
tive human health impacts.
Learn More: Shopping for Produce
You can learn more about the EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to
Pesticides in Produce, and what you
can do to reduce pesticide exposure in your own life, here.
• https://www.ewg.org/foodnews
4.5 The Problem of Synthetic Fertilizers and Poor
Soil Management
Just as industrialized, monoculture farming requires chemical
pesticides, it also relies on
synthetic fertilizers. Raising the same crop year after year
quickly depletes soils of specific
nutrients and requires the application of synthetic fertilizers to
maintain crop yields. Tra-
ditional farmers use substances already produced on their farms,
applying animal manure
or compost or plowing under old crops to enhance soil fertility.
In contrast, industrialized
farmers apply over 109 million metric tons of synthetic nitrogen
fertilizer alone to crop
fields each year (Pearce, 2018b). This dependence on synthetic
fertilizers is a symptom of
the linear approach to agriculture, which views soil as simply
one input to the production
process, rather than the complex, living ecosystem that it
actually represents. Heavy fertil-
izer use and poor soil management can result in serious

environmental problems, including
pollution of groundwater supplies, nutrient runoff and
eutrophication, and soil erosion and
land degradation.
Water Pollution
Industrialized farming operations tend to spray more chemical
pesticides than needed and
also tend to apply more fertilizer than plants can make use of.
This excess nitrogen fertilizer
in the form of nitrate can make its way through soils and into
groundwater deposits. This
nitrate pollution can persist in the water supply and build up
over time as more and more
nitrogen fertilizer gets applied to farm fields. While nitrate
pollution in groundwater is not a
redistribution.
https://www.ewg.org/foodnews
114
Section 4.5 The Problem of Synthetic Fertilizers and Poor Soil
Management
major health threat for adults, it can cause low oxygen levels in
the blood of infants and chil-
dren and result in a potentially fatal condition known as “blue
baby syndrome.” Large areas
of the agricultural Midwest, including much of Iowa, Nebraska,
and Kansas, have both high
levels of nitrogen fertilizer application and vulnerable aquifers
that provide drinking water

to the general population. As a result, many of these areas are at
high risk of groundwater
contamination by nitrate.
In addition to groundwater pollution, excess fertilizer from
farms can contribute to the pollu-
tion problem known as eutrophication (recall the case study in
Section 2.4). Excess nitrogen
and phosphorous fertilizers run off of farm fields (as w ell as
residential lawns, golf courses,
and parks) into bodies of water, where they fertilize aquatic
plant growth and create algae
blooms. This aquatic plant life, or phytoplankton, builds up and
eventually sinks to the bot-
tom, where it is decomposed by bacteria that use up the
dissolved oxygen in the water. This
results in low oxygen or hypoxic conditions that can lead to the
death and displacement of
fish and other aquatic life and eventually to the formation of
low oxygen areas known as dead
zones. As we learned in Section 2.4, the Gulf of Mexico dead
zone is the largest such area in the
United States, and the formation of this dead zone is linked
directly to the large quantities of
nitrogen and phosphorous flowing from the agricultural
Midwest into the Gulf.
Topsoil Erosion
While some soil erosion occurs naturally, industrialized
agricultural practices greatly speed
up this process.
Water is the primary cause of soil erosion from most farm
fields. Because most forms of
industrialized agriculture involve plowing and clearing the land
of vegetation, even small

amounts of rain can move soil particles off a field, since there
are no roots or organic material
to hold them in place. Mechanization and the use of heavy farm
equipment compacts soils and
requires more frequent plowing and manipulation of soils,
which can worsen erosion and fur-
ther deplete the soil of nutrients. This type of gradual, almost
imperceptible loss of topsoil is
known as sheet erosion. Heavier rains can create small streams
of water or rivulets that wash
even greater amounts of soil off fields in a process known as rill
erosion. In more extreme
cases these small streams of water can merge to form large
streams that can gouge out large
channels from fields in a process known as gully erosion. Soil
erosion not only reduces soil
fertility and crop productivity, it also creates water pollution
and sedimentation problems in
rivers, streams, and lakes.
Lucagal/iStock/Getty Images Plus NeilBradfield/iStock/Getty
Images Plus Adnan Cetin/iStock/Getty Images Plus
There are different types of soil erosion: sheet (left), rill
(center), and gully (right).
redistribution.
115
Section 4.6 The Dependence on Water and Nonrenewable
Energy
In addition to water, heavy winds can loosen and blow topsoil

off farm fields, especially in
places that are dry and flat. The 1930s Dust Bowl in prairie
areas of the United States and
Canada was a result of drought conditions and removal of trees
and other ground cover to
expand farm area. While not as dramatic as images from the
1930s, windblown soil erosion
continues to be a major problem in the United States today, and
scientists cannot rule out
the return of dust bowl conditions in periods of severe drought.
In drier regions of Asia and
Africa, overgrazing of livestock and clearance of vegetation is
allowing desert areas to expand
in a process known as desertification. Over the past 3 decades,
China has lost a land area the
size of Indiana to desertification as the Gobi Desert encroaches
into areas that were previ-
ously suitable for some forms of agriculture.
Air Pollution and Climate Change
Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer can also contribute to air
pollution. Ammonia gas from
nitrogen fertilizer application can contribute to haze great
distances from where the fertil-
izer is being applied. Nitrous oxide gas can also form in soils
fertilized with nitrogen fer-
tilizer. Nitrous oxide is a local/regional air pollutant and also
contributes to global climate
change and even ozone depletion (discussed in Chapter 8). It’s
estimated that two thirds of
global nitrous oxide emissions from human activities are a
result of agriculture. Ammonia
and nitrous oxide can react with other compounds in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate
pollution. These particulates are responsible for haze and are
also a public health risk when

inhaled into the lungs. Wind erosion of farmlands can carry soil
particles into the air and also
contribute to particulate pollution.
Overall, heavy application of agricultural fertilizers and poor
soil management practices are
resulting in the degradation of two key forms of natural capital:
water and soil. Excess fertil-
izer can seep into groundwater or run off into surface water and
result in drinking water pol-
lution, eutrophication, and aquatic dead zones. Soil erosion by
water and wind can reduce soil
quality and contribute directly to water pollution.
4.6 The Dependence on Water and Nonrenewable Energy
Unlike traditional agricultural systems that make relatively
limited use of external inputs
and are powered primarily by energy from the sun
(photosynthesis), modern industrialized
agriculture is heavily reliant on external inputs of water and
fossil fuel energy resources.
Traditional agricultural systems and approaches are generally
tailored to local conditions.
For example, farmers in regions with less precipitation and
more frequent droughts know
to depend to a greater extent on crops that require less water
and that are drought resistant.
Likewise, the cyclical approaches used in traditional
agriculture—including the use of animal
manure, composting, and crop rotation—are designed to make
the most of resources that are
already on the farm, rather than importing them.
In contrast, the highly linear approach to industrialized
agriculture enables farmers to ignore

local climate conditions and essentially import large amounts of
water and fossil fuel energy
to produce a monoculture crop.
redistribution.
116
Section 4.6 The Dependence on Water and Nonrenewable
Energy
Impact of Water Consumption
Agriculture is the single largest user of
water globally, accounting for roughly 80%
of all water use in the United States and over
90% in most western states (USDA, 2019).
Large-scale irrigation systems allow mod-
ern farmers to grow crops in certain regions
where it would otherwise not be possible
to do so, such as rice production in desert
regions of Arizona. Roughly 40% of world
food production comes from land that is
artificially irrigated (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2014),
and demand for irrigation water is pro-
jected to continue to increase in the future.
One area of concern associated with agriculture’s heavy
dependence on water is the overex-
traction of groundwater. Overextraction occurs when water is
pumped out of an underground
aquifer (an underground layer of water-bearing rock) at a rate
that exceeds natural recharge

or replenishment of that supply. If you think of an underground
aquifer as a bathtub or basin
filled with water, the rate of extraction would be water going
down the drain, while the rate
of recharge would be water coming out of the tap and into the
basin. Obviously, if more water
is going down the drain than coming from the tap, the water
level in the basin will go down.
That is exactly what is happening in many key agricultural areas
around the world today,
especially in parts of North Africa, southern Asia, China, and
the United States. Many aquifers
in these regions contain “fossil water” that was deposited there
over geological timescales.
Heavy extraction of water from these deposits is not offset by
new water recharge, and as a
result water levels are dropping dramatically. As water levels
drop, the land above it can sink
or subside. Overextraction of groundwater in coastal areas can
also allow salt water from the
sea to intrude into freshwater aquifers, making them unsuitable
for residential or agricultural
uses.
Another environmental problem associated with overuse of
irrigation water in agriculture
is soil salinization. Most irrigation water contains small or trace
amounts of salts from the
rocks in underground aquifers. When irrigation water is applied
to farm fields, some of the
water evaporates, leaving a tiny residue of salt behind. Over
time, as more and more water
gets added to a field and evaporates, more of the salt particles
can build up in the soil. Soil
salinization can lower crop yields and damage or even kill some
crop plants. It’s estimated

that over 20% of all irrigated cropland, mostly in dry areas, is
impacted by soil salinization
and that the damage to crop productivity is over $25 billion
each year (United Nations Uni-
versity, 2014).
Impact of Fossil Fuel Consumption
Energy use in agriculture is both direct and indirect. Direct
energy consumption includes the
diesel fuel, propane, electricity, and other forms of energy used
to power tractors, harvest-
ers, pumps, lights, driers, and other forms of farm equipment.
Indirect energy consumption
Songbird839/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Agriculture accounts for as much as 90% of
all water use in some western states of the
United States.
redistribution.
117
Section 4.7 The Issues With Animal and Meat Production
includes the energy used to transport crops, process foods, and
produce the fertilizers and
other agricultural chemicals used in farming. It’s estimated that
direct and indirect forms of
energy consumption in agriculture account for 19% of all
energy use in the United States each
year (Pimentel, 2006).

Agriculture’s contribution to global climate change results from
emissions of greenhouse
gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Carbon
dioxide emissions from agri-
culture happen directly as a result of burning diesel, propane,
and other fossil fuels to power
farm machinery and equipment. Carbon dioxide is also released
when forests are cut and
burned to make way for agricultural production. Agriculture is
also a major producer of meth-
ane from livestock operations and rice farming, as well as
nitrous oxide from fertilizer use.
Overall, it’s estimated that the global food system—including
growing, processing, and trans-
porting crops—is responsible for up to one third of human-
caused greenhouse gas emissions
(Gilbert, 2012).
4.7 The Issues With Animal and Meat Production
The global meat and dairy industry is massive and growing.
Worldwide, the livestock sector
produces roughly 120 million metric tons of poultry, 120
million metric tons of pork, 72 mil-
lion metric tons of beef and veal, 15 million metric tons of meat
from sheep and goats, and 827
million metric tons of milk and milk products each year (Food
and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 2018a). If divided equally among all of
the people around the world,
this would result in an average global consumption of roughly
42 kilograms (92 pounds) of
meat per person and 107 kilograms (237 pounds) of milk and
milk products per person per
year. In reality, levels of meat and milk consumption are highly
uneven. For example, the aver-

age American or Australian eats over 90 kilograms (200
pounds) of meat per year, the aver-
age person in China or Vietnam eats about 50 kilograms (110
pounds) a year, and the average
Ethiopian, Indian, or Bangladeshi eats less than 4 kilograms (9
pounds) per year (Organisa-
tion for Economic Co-operation and Development & Food and
Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, 2018a). Producing meat and dairy products
has a large environmental
footprint, and as developing countries become wealthier, it’s
expected that their citizens will
incorporate more of these foods into their diets. This will likely
aggravate some of the major
environmental issues associated with meat and dairy production,
including managing animal
waste, preventing pollution, and dealing with antibiotic
resistance.
Feeding Our Food
Before we discuss the direct environmental impact of the meat
and dairy industries, it’s
important to understand the basic inefficiencies in our current
system. To start, a signifi-
cant portion of the commercial crops grown on industrialized
farms around the world is fed
directly to animals rather than to humans. In the United States,
after excluding corn grown for
ethanol production, 50% of corn is fed to cattle, pigs, and
chickens (USDA, 2015b). Over 70%
of the soybeans grown in the United States are for animal feed,
mostly for chicken production
(USDA, 2015c).
redistribution.

118
When looked at this way, we can link virtually all of the
environmental problems associated
with agriculture to animal and meat production. Heavy use of
chemical pesticides, overap-
plication of fertilizers, soil erosion and land degradation, water
pollution and aquatic dead
zones, air pollution, and global climate change can all be linked
to the agricultural production
of crops like corn and soy that are fed to animals.
In addition, feeding grains to animals that are then fed to
humans is an inefficient way to feed
the world. Farm animals are fed well over 1 billion metric tons
of grain a year, and roughly
80% of all farmland is utilized for raising animals or growing
crops to feed animals (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2019). And
yet meat and dairy account
for just 18% of calories and 37% of protein consumed by
humans each year. For example, it
takes as much as 24 kilograms (53 pounds) of grain in the form
of animal feed to produce 1
kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef. For pork, that figure is roughly 4
to 1, and for chicken about
3 to 1, as illustrated in Figure 4.3 (Wirsenius, Azar, & Berndes,
2010). This basic inefficiency
associated with meat production and consumption lies at the
heart of debates over how to
feed a global population on track to hit 10 billion in the next

few decades.
Waste Management Problems
Many of the environmental and health issues associated with
large-scale, industrialized
approaches to meat production have to do with how these
animals are raised. Today most
of the chicken, pork, and beef consumed in developed countries
like the United States origi-
nates from what are known as concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs). The
USDA defines a CAFO as an animal feeding operation with at
least 1,000 “animal units” con-
fined for at least 45 days a year. Because
an “animal unit” equates to 454 kilograms
(1,000 pounds) of live animal weight, the
USDA definition of a CAFO describes an
animal feeding operation that has at least
1,000 cattle, 2,500 pigs, 55,000 turkeys, or
125,000 chickens. In 2016 it was estimated
that there were just under 20,000 CAFOs in
the United States (USDA, n.d.).
One benefit of CAFOs is that they bring
many animals together in one concentrated
location instead of requiring a larger land
area for grazing. This has the potential to
cut down on overgrazing and soil erosion.
However, concentrating so many animals
together in a small space can create seri-
ous problems with waste management. For example, an average
cow can produce about 30
kilograms (66 pounds) of manure per day, or 11 metric tons
each year. A CAFO with 1,000
cows (most CAFOs are much larger than this) produces as much
waste as a city of 10,000

people. Nationwide, annual production of animal waste from the
meat industry is as much as
20 times greater than waste produced by humans (Hribar, 2010).
DarcyMaulsby/ iStock/Getty Images Plus
Modern meat production has many negative
environmental effects, from fertilizer use to
water pollution and waste management.
redistribution.
119
Figure 4.3: Feeding our food
Feeding grains to animals to then be fed to humans is an
inefficient way to feed the world.
Data from “How Much Land Is Needed for Global Food
Production Under Scenarios of Dietary Changes and Livestock
Productivity
Increases in 2030?” by S. Wirsenius, C. Azar, C., and G.
Berndes, 2010, Agricultural Systems, 103
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science
/article/pii/S0308521X1000096X).
3.5 kg
2.3 kg
Beef 1kg

Pork 1kg
Chicken 1kg
Eggs 1kg
Milk 1kg1.1 kg
2.7 kg
24.0 kg
redistribution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X10
00096X
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X10
00096X
120
Environmental and health problems stem from both the sheer
volume of waste and how
this waste is handled. Typically, animal waste from CAFOs is
mixed with water to form a liq-
uid slurry and simply stored in open pits or lagoons to
decompose over time. In traditional
approaches to agriculture, this waste could potentially serve as
valuable fertilizer for crops.
However, in the case of CAFOs, there is often simply too much
waste in one location to be uti-

lized on local farm fields. Also, because animals in CAFOs are
often fed antibiotics and grain
treated with pesticides, their waste is often so contaminated that
it is dangerous to apply it to
the soil. Nevertheless, it’s estimated that about half of the
animal waste collected from CAFOs
is applied to nearby farm fields.
Some of this manure slurry runs off of fields and into nearby
rivers, streams, and other water-
ways, where it can cause eutrophication and also contaminate
drinking water supplies with
bacteria and pathogens. Some manure slurry stored in open pits
and lagoons can seep through
the soil and into groundwater deposits. In other cases heavy
rains and flooding can cause
these waste lagoons to overflow or even break open, dumping
massive amounts of concen-
trated animal waste into nearby rivers and streams. When
Hurricane Florence hit North Caro-
lina in September 2018, hundreds of hog farm manure lagoons
either overflowed or failed
completely, severely contaminating nearby drinking water
supplies (Pierre-Louis, 2018).
In addition to water pollution, CAFO waste management
practices contribute to air pollution.
Manure lagoons and open pits found in CAFOs emit many
different types of gases, including
some—like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide—that can be
hazardous to human health in the
immediate area. Many of these gaseous emissions from CAFOs
are also foul smelling, and they
can reduce quality of life and property values for nearby
residents.

CAFOs are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions
(especially methane) that con-
tribute to global climate change. These methane emissions come
both from the digestive sys-
tems of cows being raised for meat and from the breakdown of
organic wastes in the manure
lagoons found in CAFOs. It’s estimated that raising livestock is
responsible for about 36% of
methane emissions worldwide and for about 18% of all
greenhouse gas emissions (U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 2019). As demand for meat and
dairy increases worldwide,
these greenhouse gas emissions are also expected to increase
and further worsen rates of
global climate change.
Antibiotic Resistance
Because CAFOs confine so many animals together in a
relatively small space, they create ideal
conditions for the spread of infections and diseases among the
animals. As a result, CAFOs
have historically made heavy use of antibiotics to try to prevent
illness and to treat animals
that are already sick. It’s estimated that roughly 70% of
“medically important” antibiotics
used in the United States each year are for animal production
(Dall, 2016). However, recent
changes in federal guidelines governing antibiotic use in
animals, combined with growing
public concern over the dangers of antibiotic resistance, appear
to be resulting in declines in
antibiotic use in animal feeding operations (Dall, 2018).
redistribution.

121
While in the short term this antibiotic use helps cut down on
disease and increases productiv-
ity, it has a serious long-term consequence. Just as the overuse
of pesticides and herbicides
has led to the development of resistant insects and weeds,
overuse of antibiotics results in the
rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and disease organisms (see
Figure 4.4). These antibiotic-
resistant bacteria can contaminate human food supplies as the
animals are slaughtered and
can spread to drinking water supplies when manure lagoons
overflow or seep into ground-
water. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC,
2018) has now established clear
links between heavy antibiotic use in CAFOs and a rapid rise in
antibiotic-resistant bacteria,
including salmonella and E. coli. As a result, the CDC and other
public health experts have
been calling for a phase-out of routine antibiotic use in animal
feeding operations, while the
meat industry has resisted and pointed to the benefits of
antibiotic use on productivity.
Figure 4.4: Antibiotic resistance from farm to table
Antibiotic resistance has serious repercussions for human
health.
“Antibiotic Resistance and Food Safety,” by Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2018

(https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/challenges
/antibiotic-resistance.html).
redistribution.
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/challenges/antibiotic-
resistance.html
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/challenges/antibiotic-
resistance.html
122
Section 4.8 Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture
4.8 Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture
Our modern, industrialized agriculture system produces a
staggering amount of food at rela-
tively low costs to consumers. On average, Americans spend
less than 10% of their income
on food, half of what we spent a generation ago and far less
than what people in other coun-
tries spend to feed themselves (USDA, 2018a). Despite this
success, it’s quite likely that no
other human activity has as much of a destructive impact on the
environment as agriculture.
Whereas traditional approaches to agriculture were based on
maintaining and enhancing
natural capital, modern industrialized agriculture is designed
around approaches that rely
on exploitation and depletion of those resources. There are
concerns that our food’s costs to
society are not reflected in the prices we pay. Unless we
fundamentally change the way we

grow, distribute, and consume food, we can only expect that the
negative environmental and
health impacts of our food system will get worse as the
population continues to increase.
The remainder of this chapter will examine how to meet the
food and nutritional needs of
a growing population in ways that are sustainable. But what
does it mean for agriculture
to be sustainable? Definitions of sustainable agriculture can be
both simple and complex.
At a basic level, sustainable agriculture is farming that meets
our needs in ways that do
not undermine critical natural capital systems and the ability of
future generations to meet
their own needs. Once we get beyond this basic definition,
however, we see that sustainable
agriculture involves issues of science, technology, the
environment, economics, social equity,
government policy, and personal choices and preferences.
Researchers have concluded that
no single approach or technological breakthrough will be
enough to move us toward sustain-
able agriculture. Instead, we need an “all of the above” strategy
that combines many different
approaches and practices (Springmann et al., 2018; Searchinger,
Waite, Hanson, & Rangana-
than, 2018). The ideas in this chapter should not be considered
in isolation or as “magic bul-
lets” for solving the environmental and health impacts of
industrialized agriculture. Rather,
these practices and approaches should be viewed as being most
effective when implemented
in a synergistic or combined fashion.
Many of the on-farm practices that are promoted as

“sustainable” are ones that were common
in traditional agriculture and practiced for hundreds or
thousands of years. These practices
are designed to build and maintain healthy soil, manage water
effectively, minimize air and
water pollution, and promote a diversity of species and
organisms on the farm and in sur-
rounding areas. That being said, simply returning to traditional
agricultural practices used
before the Green Revolution might not be possible or practical
at this stage. The key will be to
take some of the wisdom and knowledge built up over thousands
of years of practicing tradi-
tional agriculture and combine that with the scientific and
technical knowledge that enabled
the Green Revolution.
Crop Rotation and Intercropping
Crop rotation is the practice of planting different crops on the
same piece of land every few
years. A related method is intercropping, or strip cropping,
wherein a mix of different crops
are grown in the same area, as opposed to the monocropping of
industrialized agriculture.
redistribution.
123
Crop rotation and intercropping help maintain soil fertility
because different crops have dif-

ferent nutrient needs for growth. Some crops can even enhance
soil fertility and reduce the
need for fertilizers. For example, a farmer can grow corn—a
nitrogen-intensive crop—in a
field one year and the following year grow legumes, which add
nitrogen to the soil.
Crop rotation and intercropping also help reduce pest outbreaks,
since pests tend to be crop
specific. By changing the crops grown in one field year to year
or alternating the spacing of
crops in a single year through intercropping, pests are not given
an opportunity to establish
themselves and spread over the area, which thereby reduces the
need for pesticides.
Cover Crops
Common cover crops, such as alfalfa and clover, are planted on
farm fields during the off-
season. Letting a field lay bare can lead to soil erosion through
wind and rain. Using cover
crops can prevent erosion by helping hold the soil in place.
Some cover crops can also enhance
soil fertility and reduce the need for fertilizers by returning
nitrogen to the soil. Cover crops
prevent the influx of weeds and pests and reduce the need for
pesticides.
Cover crops can simply be plowed into the soil at the start of
the next growing season, where
they continue to enhance soil quality and nutrient levels as they
break down and decompose.
Alternatively, these crops can be left on the field permanently
and mowed like a lawn for ani-
mal feed. This latter approach is known as perennial agriculture
because it involves leaving

these crops in place year after year.
Contour and Terrace Farming
Traditional agriculturists have adapted to
farming on hilly and steep land by practic-
ing contour farming and terracing. Contour
farming involves plowing sideways across
a hillside, following the natural contour of
the land. This creates small ridges or fur-
rows that trap soil as it slides down the hill,
preventing soil erosion and creating a series
of contoured strips along the side of the hill.
Terracing is used on even steeper terrain
and involves cutting into the hillside to cre-
ate a series of steps or platforms that can
hold soil and irrigation water in place to
grow crops. Terracing is a common feature
of rice cropping in mountainous regions of
Southeast Asia, where this approach has
been practiced for thousands of years.
naihei/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Farmers who live in steep areas rely on
techniques such as terracing, in which a series
of platforms are cut into the hillside to allow
crops to grow.
redistribution.
124

Low-Till and No-Till Farming
Plowing, or tilling, fields for planting helps aerate the soil and
cut down on weeds, but it
also leaves the surface bare, thereby increasing soil erosion,
water evaporation, and water
demand. Low-till farming and no-till farming take a different
approach, inserting seeds
directly into undisturbed soil. Instead of plowing up a field
after each harvest, farmers leave
their fields covered in plants at all times. They use a device
known as a no-till drill to make a
shallow cut in the soil, drop in seeds, and cover them. Low-till
and no-till farming minimize
soil erosion, allow more organic material to accumulate on the
surface, and help maintain
soil moisture much better than plowed soils. These approaches
are commonly referred to as
conservation tillage.
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated pest management (IPM) is an approach to managing
agricultural pests with
few or zero chemical pesticides. Note IPM’s goal of managing
agricultural pests rather than
eliminating them. In IPM, tactics are tailored to the specific
pest problem a farmer faces, as
opposed to simply dousing a field in chemical pesticides and
killing everything in it. IPM strat-
egies might include the use of biological methods (introducing
natural predators), altered
planting practices (crop rotation, intercropping), and even
mechanical devices to vacuum
pests off of crops.
IPM has been used successfully in many different types of

agricultural systems in every part
of the world. Apple farmers in Massachusetts, soybean farmers
in Brazil, vegetable farmers in
Cuba, and banana farmers in Costa Rica have dramatically
reduced pesticide use while main-
taining or even improving crop productivity through the use of
IPM.
One of the most dramatic IPM triumphs was with rice
agriculture in Indonesia. Throughout
the 1970s and 1980s, as more and more Indonesian farmers were
adopting Green Revolution
rice varieties, the government heavily subsidized the purchase
and use of chemical pesticides
to control outbreaks of brown planthoppers that threatened the
rice crop.
However, over time, planthopper populations became resistant
to many common forms of
pesticide. As farmers applied increasing amounts of the
chemicals to try to control this pest,
they only succeeded in wiping out populations of beneficial
insects (such as spiders) that
naturally preyed on the planthoppers.
By the late 1980s the Indonesian government took drastic
action, banning most pesticides,
eliminating subsidies for others, and instituting a widespread
IPM education program to
teach farmers how to control the brown planthopper using
biological methods. By all mea-
sures this change in approach was a success. Pesticide use
dropped by as much as 75%, while
rice yields actually increased slightly over time (Thorburn,
2015).

redistribution.
125
Section 4.9 Considering Farm Policy, Economics, and Personal
Choices
Integrating Crops and Livestock
A growing number of farmers are returning to the traditional
integrated crop–livestock sys-
tems, in which a variety of crops and animals are raised on the
same farm and animal wastes
are used as fertilizer. Recall that industrialized agriculture is a
linear process that tends to
keep crop production and animal production separate, thereby
removing a solution—using
animal wastes as fertilizer—and instead creating two problems:
a need for synthetic fertilizer
and the disposal of massive amounts of waste.
Integrated crop–livestock systems are sometimes referred to as
agroecology, permaculture, or
low-input farming. These systems are often complex and
cyclical and require careful planning
and practice. However, when done well, integrated crop–
livestock systems greatly enhance
soil fertility, reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers, raise
animals in more humane and less
environmentally destructive ways, and help diversify local and
regional farm economies.
Many of these integrated crop–livestock farming systems have
benefited from strong local
consumer support, as discussed in the next section.

Each of these six traditional on-farm practices—crop rotation
and intercropping, cover crops,
contour and terrace farming, low-till and no-till farming, IPM,
and integrated crop–livestock
systems—has been demonstrated to reduce environmental
impacts, increase crop yields, and
save farmers money. However, all six also take careful
planning, knowledge, and patience to
implement. It’s also the case that many of the decisions that
farmers make about what to grow
and how to grow it are influenced by government policy,
economic factors, and the prefer-
ences and personal choices that consumers make every time
they purchase food. These issues
are the subject of Section 4.9.
4.9 Considering Farm Policy, Economics,
and Personal Choices
Like any other business or enterprise, farmers make decisions
about what to grow, how to
grow it, and where to market it based in large part on the policy
environment and market
conditions in which they operate. In the United States and other
developed countries, gov-
ernment policy has a significant impact on decisions that
farmers make about what and how
to farm. Likewise, farmers would be foolish not to consider or
be influenced by consumer
preferences, choices, and tastes. Therefore, in attempting to
move toward more sustainable
approaches to agriculture, it’s important to examine how we
might influence policy, economic
factors, and consumer choices in ways that encourage farmers
and other actors in the food

system to operate more sustainably.
redistribution.
126
Choices
Farm Policy
By its very nature, farming is a somewhat risky enterprise.
Weather-related disasters like
droughts, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes can wipe out an
entire season’s worth of labor
and investment. For these reasons, governments in developed
countries tend to be heavily
involved in the farm economy. Some of this government
spending goes to support agricul-
tural research and development at universities and scientific
institutes, food inspection and
safety, infrastructure like rail and irrigation systems, and
education and outreach programs
for farmers. However, the bulk of this government spending—
close to $500 billion a year
from the top 21 food-producing countries worldwide—goes to
direct and indirect subsidies
to farmers and farm enterprises (Worldwatch Institute, 2014).
Direct subsidies are payments
made directly to farmers by the government, whereas indirect
subsidies include things like
crop insurance and price supports that are designed to help keep
farming operations finan-
cially viable.

Proponents of these subsidy payments argue that they are
necessary to help farmers man-
age the risk inherent in this line of work and that they benefit
small family farms and local
economies. Detractors point to a number of serious problems
with this subsidized approach.
Issues With Subsidies
First, subsidies allow farmers to sell their crops overseas below
the cost of production. When
cheap exports of corn, wheat, or rice are sold in poorer,
developing countries, they undercut
local farmers and drive them out of business, since governments
in these countries cannot
afford to subsidize their own farmers. This creates a cycle of
dependence in which local food
production drops, more cheap food is imported, and local food
production drops further.
Second, farm subsidies can be linked to some of the
environmental problems described ear-
lier. Subsidies tend to encourage farmers to overproduce, which
brings more land than is
needed into production, including lands prone to erosion
(Edwards, 2018). As production
increases, so does the use of fertilizers and pesticides, as well
as the environmental problems
associated with their application. In addition, since subsidies
are usually targeted at a narrow
range of “commodity crops” (like corn and soybeans), they tend
to discourage crop rotation
and intercropping since farmers are encouraged to maximize
acreage planted with the sub-
sidized crops (Edwards, 2018).

Lastly, there is little evidence that subsidies are important in
protecting family farms and sup-
porting local farm economies. Instead, the bulk of farm
subsidies go to support some of the
largest and most financially secure farm operations. The U.S.
government spends over $20
billion a year on farm subsidies, and it’s estimated that over
70% of that amount goes to just
10% of America’s farm operations (Edwards, 2018; EWG,
2019b). In 2017 there were a total
of 389 farm operations in the United States that each received at
least $1 million in govern-
ment subsidies, including 11 operations that received between
$5 million and $9.9 million
each (Andrzejewski, 2018). Likewise, millions of dollars in
farm subsidy checks are mailed
to addresses in Chicago, Houston, New York, and even Beverly
Hills every year—not exactly
locations that fit the definition of a local farm economy
(Andrzejewski, 2018).
redistribution.
127
Choices
Alternative Approaches
Instead of a farm subsidy program that undercuts farmers in
poor countries, actually encour-
ages farmers to practice unsustainable agriculture, and enriches
farmers and farm operations

that are already financially secure, these billions of tax dollars
could be used in other ways.
Sustainable agriculture advocates argue that simply eliminating
these subsidy programs
could go a long way toward getting farmers to rethink what they
grow and how they grow it.
Alternatively, some of the billions of dollars spent annually on
farm subsidy payments could
be directed to programs that reward farmers for practicing
conservation farming and sustain-
able agriculture.
Ultimately, such a change involves political decisions, since the
beneficiaries of current sub-
sidy programs have a lot of political influence. But there is
strong evidence that such a change
in policy can reduce government spending, bring environmental
benefits, and actually sup-
port those farmers and farm communities most in need of help.
Therefore, it’s possible to
imagine a political alliance across the ideological left–right
spectrum that could advocate for
such a change.
Consumer Choices and Preferences
Perhaps more than any other factor, individual consumer
preferences and decisions can have
the biggest impact on how fast we move toward sustainable
agriculture. What we choose to
buy and eat, and where we choose to buy it, sends direct signals
to farmers and other busi-
nesses in the food system.
Choosing Locally Sourced Foods
Currently, the U.S. commercial food system is dominated by

large-scale, industrialized farm-
ing and food distribution enterprises. Food produced by these
businesses often travels long
Learn More: Farm Subsidies in Your State
Research by the EWG and a group called Open the Books sheds
light on how farm subsidy
programs in the United States are mostly enriching financially
secure farm operations
and wealthy farmers while doing little to assist the vast majority
of smaller, family farm
operations. You can see how farm subsidies have been allocated
in your state from 1995
to 2017 by visiting the EWG Farm Subsidy Database
(https://farm.ewg.org) and clicking
on your state. You can also see how many of the 389 farm
operations that received over
$1 million in 2017 are in your state by exploring the appendix
of the Open the Books report
Harvesting U.S. Farm Subsidies
(https://issuu.com/openthebooks/docs/usfarmsubsidies_08
072018?e=31597235/63670406).
redistribution.
https://farm.ewg.org
https://issuu.com/openthebooks/docs/usfarmsubsidies_08072018
?e=31597235/63670406
https://issuu.com/openthebooks/docs/usfarmsubsidies_08072018
?e=31597235/63670406
128

Choices
distances before reaching its ultimate consumer. It’s estimated
that a typical food item sold
in a conventional American grocery store travels 2,400 to 4,000
kilometers (1,500 to 2,500
miles) before being purchased (Worldwatch Institute, n.d.). The
environmental impact of all of
those “food miles”—combined with the environmental impacts
of industrialized agriculture
discussed earlier in this chapter—is driving many consumers to
reconsider their food pur-
chases in terms of both what they buy and where they buy it.
This trend has been described
as the “local foods movement” and the “farm-to-table
movement,” and people who buy and
consume more locally produced foods are described as
“locavores.” What these efforts have in
common is an emphasis on purchasing locally produced foods
that are in season.
Consumers can connect with local farmers in a few different
ways. Farmers’ markets—where
local farmers gather to sell their products directly to
consumers—have become much more
common in many areas of the United States in recent years. In
the mid-1990s there were
fewer than 1,800 farmers’ markets across the country. That
number rose to almost 4,700 by
2008 and to well over 8,000 today (Farmers Market Coalition,
2019). Farmers’ markets help
support small-scale local farms, involve much less
transportation and packaging, and offer
consumers fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats in place of many
of the highly processed foods

found in supermarkets.
Consumers can also connect with local farmers through a
community-supported agricul-
ture (CSA) program. In a typical CSA program, a consumer
pays up front for a “share” of a
local farmer’s crops or farm products (including meat and
eggs). In return, the consumer
receives a regular delivery of fruits, vegetables, and other
products from that farm over the
course of the growing season. CSA programs often offer
consumers the opportunity to visit
and even volunteer to work on the farm they are supporting.
This helps bring people in closer
contact with where their food comes from, how it’s grown, and
what’s involved in bringing
food from the farm to the table. While estimates of the number
of CSA programs are harder
to come by, a 2015 USDA report estimated that there were over
167,000 U.S. farms that pro-
duced and sold food for local markets through farmers’ markets,
CSA programs, and other
local food initiatives (USDA, 2015a).
One other example of the move toward local
foods is the rise of urban farming. Urban
farming repurposes unused space—such
as rooftops, vacant lots, and even roadside
medians—in heavily populated city areas.
In the United States, urban farming pro-
grams often grow out of need, since many
inner-city areas are food deserts—areas
where it is difficult to purchase affordable,
good-quality fresh food. Urban gardens and
urban farming programs are now wide-
spread in most major cities of the United

States, including New York, Chicago, Detroit,
Cleveland, Memphis, Baltimore, and Atlanta.
To find out more about local food options in your area, check
out Close to Home: Developing a
Local Diet.
BrasilNut1/iStock/Getty Images Plus
A shift toward local foods includes urban
farming, which repurposes unused space in
heavily populated areas.
redistribution.
129
Choices
Close to Home: Developing a Local Diet
There are a number of environmental benefits associated with
eating local foods. Fruits,
vegetables, and other perishables do not need to be transported
very far or preserved for
very long when they are produced close to consumers. As a
result, local food options often
result in less energy use and fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
Crops that are well adapted
to local climates also require fewer chemical inputs and less
water management during
production.

Local foods provide a number of social benefits as well. They
build community by fostering
relationships between growers and consumers. Some also argue
that local food systems
increase food security by diversifying food production. In our
global food system, crops are
often produced on a small number of very large farms. This
means that diseases, natural
disasters, and market disruptions that impact one region can
have consequences for food
availability all over the world. Local food
systems, on the other hand, must rely on a
large number of smaller food producers, so
consumers have other options if a few farms
have a bad year.
Purchasing local food can also help local
economies generate wealth. Rather than
sending money to a grower on the other side
of the world, local foods support local farmers.
These individuals can then use that wealth to
support other community organizations and
local businesses.
Local foods address several dimensions of
sustainability, and arguments like these have
convinced a lot of people to reconsider their
eating habits and join the local food movement. Most just try to
incorporate a few local
options into their diet, but some try to survive mostly or
entirely on locally produced foods—
all the more impressive when you consider that very few fruits
and vegetables are available
year-round in most locations.

To explore what it would mean to eat a local diet in your
location, take a look at the Seasonal
Food Guide website that summarizes local produce availability.
After selecting your location,
scroll through the different harvesting seasons and note the
foods that might be seasonally
available. Do you think you could create a diet that incorporates
more local produce? Are
there certain times of the year when eating local becomes much
more difficult? What are
some strategies that you could use to continue eating the local
foods you love even when they
are not in season?
To get your hands on some local ingredients, explore Local
Harvest, an online directory
of local food growers and vendors. Many regions have one or
more farmers’ markets that
gather several growers in one convenient location. Individual
farms in your region might also
offer subscriptions to CSAs that provide you with an assortment
of goods over the course
of a growing season. Of course, the most local option of them
all is to grow your own food
around your home. If this sounds exciting to you, the USDA has
a variety of home gardening
resources that might help.
kasto80/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Buying food from local farmers
helps local economies and fosters
relationships within the community.
redistribution.

https://www.seasonalfoodguide.org
https://www.seasonalfoodguide.org
https://www.localharvest.org
https://www.nal.usda.gov/home-gardening
https://www.nal.usda.gov/home-gardening
130
Choices
Choosing Organic
Yet another way individual consumers can push for
sustainability in our food system is
through organic foods. Organic food is produced through
methods that comply with the fed-
eral standards of organic farming. Because organic farming
requires that farmers forgo the
use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, among other
requirements, it is generally better for
the environment than conventional approaches to agriculture.
More and more Americans are
choosing to purchase foods that are certified organic, with
organic food sales now valued at
over $35 billion annually in the United States alone (USDA,
2017).
However, organic farming is not always the most sustainable
option. For example, should you
buy organic apples shipped more than 4,000 kilometers (2,500
miles) across the country or
locally grown but nonorganic apples? The more sustainable
choice might be to go with the
latter.

Choosing Less Meat
A final dietary decision consumers can make is how much meat
to consume, which can have
a significant effect on the sustainability of our food system. A
typical Western diet is high in
sugar, fats, refined carbohydrates, meat, and dairy. Not only is
this diet a problem in terms of
personal health, it also tends to have a greater environmental
impact than other diet types.
The World Resources Institute (WRI) estimates that beef
production accounts for almost half
of U.S. agricultural land use and greenhouse gas emissions from
farming while only providing
for 3% of the calories consumed by Americans (Ranganathan et
al., 2016). This is because of
the basic inefficiency associated with converting grains to
animal protein. A shift from beef
to less intensive forms of meat like chicken or reducing meat
consumption overall can bring
significant environmental gains and help consumers reduce their
environmental footprint.
Much less agricultural land is required to support a more
vegetarian diet, which translates
into less energy and water use as well. Even small moves
toward lowering meat consump-
tion can have a big impact. One study estimated that if every
American picked 1 day a week
to avoid meat (such as a “meatless Monday”), it would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions at
a level equivalent to taking 30 million to 40 million cars off the
road for 1 year (Center for
Biological Diversity, 2019).
Food Loss and Waste

Food loss refers to food that is discarded
before it even reaches the consumer; that is,
during the production, processing, and dis-
tribution phases. Food waste refers to food
that is discarded directly by consumers,
restaurants, or other institutions like hospi-
tals and schools. It’s estimated that world-
wide approximately 1.6 billion metric tons
of food—one third of all food produced—
is lost or wasted every year. This wasted
food is estimated to be worth $1.2 trillion
peder77/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Every year, one third of all food produced
worldwide is wasted.
redistribution.
131
Section 4.10 The Role of Science and Technology
annually; at the same time, close to 1 billion people around the
world face food scarcity and
shortages. In the United States the annual rate of food loss and
waste is actually higher (40%)
than the global rate, and it’s estimated that an average American
family of four throws away
526 kilograms (1,160 pounds) of food every year (Lipinski et
al., 2013).
Food loss and waste is challenging to address because the
global food distribution system

is complex, and waste occurs at every stage of that system. A
2013 WRI report found that
food loss and waste differed significantly from country to
country. In the poorer countries of
Africa, Latin America, and Asia, between one half and three
fourths of all food waste occurs
at the production stage and the handling and storage stage of the
food distribution system.
This is due in large part to a lack of adequate infrastructure in
the form of roads, refriger-
ated warehouses, and other modern food storage facilities. In
contrast, in North America and
Europe, well over half of all food loss and waste occurs at the
consumption stage and can be
tied directly to the behaviors of individual consumers and
businesses like restaurants and
caterers (Lipinski et al., 2013).
The WRI report recommends various programs and initiatives to
help cut down on food loss
and waste. These include
• food redistribution programs that send food that would
otherwise be wasted to food
banks and shelters;
• increased access for poor farmers to food storage facilities;
• standardized and clear food date labeling (such as “use by,”
“sell by,” and “best
before” labels) to reduce unnecessary disposal of food that
hasn’t spoiled;
• consumer awareness campaigns to teach strategies for
reducing food waste; and
• reduced portion sizes in restaurants.

Two examples of these kinds of efforts come from the United
Kingdom and New York City.
From 2007 to 2010, the United Kingdom implemented the Waste
and Resources Action Pro-
gramme, which achieved a 13% reduction in household food
waste and an additional 9%
reduction in food waste at the retail stage. These savings came
through simple and com-
monsense strategies that not only cut waste but also helped
consumers and businesses save
money. These efforts included education campaigns targeted at
consumers on reducing food
waste, as well as programs for businesses to channel food that
might otherwise be discarded
to charities or composting facilities (Waste and Resources
Action Programme, n.d.). In New
York City a program known as Rescuing Leftover Cuisine
organizes hundreds of volunteers
every day to collect food that would otherwise be thrown away
by restaurants, grocery stores,
and other businesses and distributes that food to shelters, soup
kitchens, and social service
agencies. The program estimates that since 2013 it has rescued
close to 1.3 million kilograms
(2.8 million pounds) of food and provided over 2.3 million
meals to people in need (Rescuing
Leftover Cuisine, 2019).
4.10 The Role of Science and Technology
This section will examine how science and technology are
enabling agriculture to be more
productive, efficient, and environmentally friendly—another
option in our “all of the above”
approach to meeting the food and nutritional needs of 10 billion
people. The section will

redistribution.
132
review a variety of approaches—including use of the Global
Positioning System (GPS), drones,
and robots in farming—that fall under the definition of
“precision farming” or “site-specific
crop management.” The section will also consider two
approaches to growing food that do
not require the use of soil: aquaponics and hydroponics. The
section will conclude with a case
study of how the tiny country of the Netherlands has become a
world leader in sustainable
agriculture and agricultural productivity, in part through the
widespread adoption of a vari-
ety of precision farming approaches.
Precision Farming
Throughout the world, more and more farmers are adopting
high-tech approaches to manag-
ing their crops. This includes using GPS, satellite imagery, soil
moisture sensors, drones, and
even robots to provide them with real-time data on crop and
field conditions. Farmers use
this data to make more precise decisions, like when and where
to irrigate, whether pesticides
or fertilizers are needed for certain crops, and when the ideal
time is to harvest a crop. Thus,
this type of high-tech farming is known as precision agriculture.

For example, almond farmers in water-scarce regions of
California rely on networks of small
moisture sensors buried in the soil throughout their orchards to
determine when and where
water is needed. The sensors feed data to an automated water
pumping system that delivers
just the right amount of water to just the right location.
Likewise, corn farmers can now make use of a device known as
a Rowbot that applies precise
amounts of fertilizers to the crop based on data provided by soil
and crop sensors. Aerial
drones can be mounted with sensors that can detect whether
some plants are diseased or
need nutrients, and that data can be used to target spraying or
fertilizer application to spe-
cific locations. These technologies improve on the conventional
practice of simply irrigat-
ing or spraying pesticides and fertilizers across an entire field
without any consideration for
site-specific differences in conditions across the farm. The goal
of this high-tech, precision
agriculture is to increase productivity, decrease the use of
inputs like water and agricultural
chemicals, and minimize the impact of agriculture on the
environment. All of these outcomes
have the added benefit of improving a farmer’s profitability.
Farming Without Soil
Hydroponics and aquaponics are ways to grow crops without the
use of soil. Hydroponics
grows plants by suspending them with their roots placed in a
water–mineral nutrient solu-
tion. Aquaponics builds on this idea by incorporating
aquaculture, or raising aquatic animals

like fish, with a hydroponic system (see Figure 4.5). One
advantage of aquaponics is that the
waste products from the fish portion of the system can be used
as fertilizer for the plants, and
some of the plant material can be fed to the fish. In this way,
aquaponics resembles the kind of
closed-loop, cyclical system involving crop–livestock
integration common in traditional farm-
ing, just with a modern approach.
redistribution.
133
Figure 4.5: Aquaponics
This aquaponics example is a self-contained, closed-loop system
that requires only sunlight and
rainwater.
Adapted from normaals/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Rainwater
Rainwater tank
Rainwater
Hydroponic crops
Irrigation system

Fish tank generates
nutrients from waste
Fish
Hydroponics and especially aquaponics offer a number of
benefits over conventional
approaches to farming. Because water is recycled through these
systems, hydroponics and
aquaponics use only about one tenth the amount of water used
by conventional farming.
Since these are usually indoor systems, they also do not require
as much chemical pesticide
application. Hydroponic and aquaponic systems can be built at
many different scales and can
be an important part of urban farming and education programs.
On the other hand, there are a few challenges and limitations to
the use of hydroponics and
aquaponics. These systems require a fair amount of up-front
investment and specific knowl-
edge to build and maintain. Likewise, indoor hydroponic and
aquaponic systems require
energy and electricity for lighting and climate control.
redistribution.
134
Section 4.11 Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified
Organisms

Case Study: High-Tech Farming in the Netherlands
The small European country of the Netherlands is a pioneer in
the use of precision agricul-
ture techniques as well as hydroponics. For almost 2 decades,
the Dutch have been focusing
government and private resources on sustainable agriculture,
with impressive results. Water
use for key crops has dropped almost 90%, chemical pesticide
use in greenhouses has been
almost eliminated, and poultry and livestock producers have
reduced the use of antibiotics
by 60% (Viviano, 2017). At the same time, crop yields and
productivity have risen across
the board, and the Netherlands is a world leader and top
exporter of potatoes, onions, and a
number of other vegetables.
Part of this success comes from the widespread use of climate-
controlled greenhouse com-
plexes. The Dutch countryside is dotted with clusters of
agricultural greenhouses, in which
farmers can carefully control conditions to maximize
productivity and minimize inputs. The
Dutch have also fully embraced the use of drones, soil and
moisture sensors, robots, and GPS
in agriculture. In many cases energy to heat the greenhouse
complexes comes from ground-
source geothermal systems, a sustainable and nonpolluting
energy source. Overall, the Dutch
are proving that large strides, not just incremental change, can
still take place in agriculture.
4.11 Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified
Organisms
For almost as long as humans have been farming, they have

been manipulating plant and ani-
mal species to favor some traits over others. Crossbreeding and
selective breeding have been
used by farmers for thousands of years to favor crops that
produce more seeds or fruit or to
favor animals that produce more wool or milk.
However, all of those efforts involved favoring or breeding for
traits that already existed
within a species or between closely related species. For
example, a rice plant that produced
abundant grain but was easily damaged by wind could be
crossbred with a different rice plant
that produced less grain but had a stronger stem that could
withstand wind. The resulting
rice plant, after repeated breeding, would feature both desirable
traits—high grain produc-
tion and strong stems—in a single seed.
Genetic engineering, or the genetic modification of crops and
animals, represents a funda-
mentally new approach. Genetic engineering involves the
removal of genetic material (genes)
from one organism and combining it with the DNA of another.
These gene transfers are often
described as “novel” because they would never occur on their
own in the natural world. For
example, genetic material from fish high in omega-3 fatty acids
has been inserted into soy-
bean plants to try to produce soybean oil high in the fatty acids
believed to be beneficial to
heart health. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are
organisms that have had their
genetic material modified in ways that would not have been
possible in nature.

redistribution.
135
Organisms
Advantages and Opportunities
Proponents point to a number of advantages and opportunities in
genetic engineering and
GMOs. They argue that genetic engineering opens up new ways
to introduce desirable traits
into plants and animals. These include both “input” traits—such
as developing animals that
are resistant to disease or developing crops that are resistant to
drought—as well as “output”
traits—like breeding crops that have higher nutritional content.
A few examples of GMOs that
have already been developed help illustrate these arguments.
Almost 20 years ago, crop scientists in Asia engineered a new
rice variety that contains beta-
carotene (vitamin A) in the grains. Vitamin A deficiency is a
serious public health challenge
in poorer regions of Asia, where rice is a staple crop. The new
rice variety, named “golden
rice” because of its yellow color, has not yet been widely
adopted by farmers or accepted by
consumers in the region.
As another example, genetic material from a bacteria known as
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has
been successfully inserted into corn and cotton plants to fight

insects. Bt produces a toxin
that kills insects that eat the plant but is not harmful to people.
When insects feed on what is
known as Bt corn or Bt cotton, they are poisoned and die,
reducing the need for applications
of pesticides on these crops. Bt corn and cotton currently
account for about 80% of the total
production of these crops in the United States each year (USDA,
2018b).
Finally, Canadian scientists have recently taken genetic material
from Pacific chinook salmon
as well as from another fish known as ocean pout and inserted
these into Atlantic salmon to
promote faster growth. These “GM salmon” grow twice as fast
as and consume less feed than
conventional Atlantic salmon, potentially lowering the cost of
production of this healthy food
option. In 2015 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approved the sale of GM salmon in
this country, although actual marketing of this fish in the
United States was not scheduled to
happen until 2019.
A Cautionary Word
Despite the apparent advantages of genetic engineer-
ing and GMOs, some scientists, public health experts,
consumer advocates, and environmental groups have
come out strongly against this approach. Most of the
arguments against genetic engineering are based on
issues of safety and ethics and on whether this tech-
nology is resulting in even more market power and
control for large corporations.
In terms of safety, concern has been expressed for
both human health impacts and unintended environ-

mental consequences of GMOs. Because GMOs involve
the creation of “novel” or new organisms, there are
concerns that they could result in an increase in aller-
gic reactions in some people, although it’s not clear
yet whether this is already happening. Likewise,
GMOs might be having unintended environmental
Ginton/iStock/Getty Images Plus
It’s not yet clear how genetically
modified foods could affect our
environment in the long run. These
types of crops could be affecting
other species, such as the butterflies
visiting the fields for pollen.
redistribution.
136
Organisms
consequences. For example, some butterfly species appear to
have been negatively impacted
by consuming pollen from Bt corn.
At a more basic level, many people argue against genetic
engineering and GMOs on ethical or
philosophical grounds. They suggest that genetic engineering is
“tinkering with nature” and that
GM foods are not natural and are instead a type of
“Frankenfood.” This contributes to arguments
for mandatory labeling of foods that contain GMOs, something

that is not required in the United
States but is more common in other countries. (See also Apply
Your Knowledge: Are GMOs Safe?)
Lastly, because research, development, and marketing of many
GMOs are dominated by large
multinational corporations, many skeptics of genetic
engineering argue that this technology is
concentrating more power over our food system in the hands of
a small number of companies.
These corporations are patenting the new organisms they
develop, giving them market control
over basic food commodities. Overall, critics and skeptics of
genetic engineering argue that
perhaps we should adopt more of a “precautionary principle”
when it comes to this technology
and allow for its development and commercialization after more
careful review and testing.
Apply Your Knowledge: Are GMOs Safe?
Scorpion DNA in cabbage? Corn that is immune to herbicides?
GMOs are certainly very
strange, and some people are worried that they represent a
health risk to the humans who
consume them. This feature box will analyze some data at the
heart of this conversation and
explore both sides of the GMO debate.
The data in Figure 4.6 come from a 2003 experiment designed
to understand the health risks
of consuming genetically modified tomatoes (Chen et al., 2003).
In this study researchers began
with young rats that were divided into four experimental
groups. Three groups were fed diets
containing different amounts of disease-resistant tomatoes that

were modified with virus
DNA. The remaining group of rats was fed a non-GMO diet in
order to provide an example of
normal rat development. This provided a baseline measurement
that the other groups could
be compared against, which researchers call an experimental
control. Rats were weighed each
week of the 4-week study, and their growth trends are shown in
Figure 4.6. Based on this data,
do you think that genetically modified tomatoes impacted the
growth of the rats in this study?
At first glance, you might notice that the data points fall really
close to one another. In fact,
it is even hard to tell one point from another because the
individual symbols overlap. We
can take this analysis a step farther if we notice the error bars
that are associated with
each data point. Because experiments are never perfect,
measurements like these are just
our best attempts to approximate the “true” values that describe
the system. Therefore, we
often calculate error bars to represent the uncertainty of our
measurements. In general, the
ranges indicated by the error bars are where we are most likely
to find the “true” value of our
measurement. If we take this into account, we might notice that
all of the data points at each
time interval have overlapping error bars. This means that all of
the data points might share
the same “true” value. In this situation, we cannot make an
argument that our data points
are statistically different from one another. It appears that the
rats consuming the genetically
modified diets behave like the control rats.

The rats in this experiment were similar in other ways too. In
addition to growth, the
researchers in this experiment compared the blood, organs, and
biological processes of all
the rat groups, and none of these measurements showed
statistical differences.
(continued)
redistribution.
137
Organisms
Figure 4.6: Male and female rat growth with GMO diets
Plots showing male (a) and female (b) rat growth over the
course of the 4-week study.
Data from “Safety Assessment for Genetically Modified Sweet
Pepper and Tomato,” by Z. Chen, H. Gu, Y. Li, Y. Su, P. Wu, Z.
Jiang,
. . . L. Qu, 2003, Toxicology, 188.
300
250
200
150

100
50
0
10 432
W
e
ig
h
t
(g
)
Time (weeks)
(a)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

10 432
W
e
ig
h
t
(g
)
Time (weeks)
(b)
Control
Little GMO
tomato content
Moderate GMO
tomato content
High GMO
tomato content
Control
Little GMO
tomato content
Moderate GMO
tomato content
High GMO
tomato content

Apply Your Knowledge: Are GMOs Safe? (continued)
(continued)
redistribution.
138
Organisms
The Bottom Line
Regardless of what position one takes on genetic engineering,
the reality is that GMOs are
already in widespread use and are present in many of the
processed foods sold in American
supermarkets. Though only introduced in roughly the past 20
years, it’s estimated that in the
United States today, 94% of all soybeans, 96% of all cotton, and
93% of all corn being grown
are in the form of genetically engineered varieties (USDA,
2018b). Likewise, it’s estimated
that well over 70% of all processed foods sold in the United
States contain at least some GMO
ingredients (Center for Food Safety, 2019).
Globally, the land area planted with GM crops has grown from
just over 1 million hectares
(2.5 million acres) in the late 1990s to almost 200 million
hectares (494 million acres) today
(Silva, 2017). The United States leads in terms of land area
planted with GMOs, followed by

Brazil, Argentina, India, and Canada. However, widespread
adoption of GM crops is uneven. In
Europe some countries have placed outright bans on the
cultivation of GM crops, and strong
anti-GMO sentiment among consumers keeps the demand for
foods made with GMOs well
below what it is in the United States.
Apply Your Knowledge: Are GMOs Safe? (continued)
Several other studies have reached similar conclusions about
other GMO foods. Researchers
have found no negative consequences for rats that consumed
GMO sweet peppers, rice,
potatoes, and corn, among other GMO crop varieties (Chen et
al., 2003; Hammond et al., 2006;
Schrøder et al., 2007; Seek Rhee et al., 2005). Other studies
have explored long-term exposure
to GMO foods over several generations of reproducing rats, and
once again, GMOs do not seem
to pose a significant risk (Seek Rhee et al., 2005; Brake, Thaler,
& Evenson, 2004).
Does that mean GMOs are safe? Even though studies like these
provide us with important
information, it is also important to think critically and
recognize the limits of this
information. The studies mentioned were carried out on a few
types of food with populations
of rats for limited amounts of time. Unfortunately, we still do
not know for sure how people
will react to a variety of genetically modified foods over the
course of human lifetimes and
generations. Even though much of the science suggests that
GMOs are safe to eat, we may not
know for sure until people have been eating them consistently

for several decades.
GMOs demonstrate that matters of health and the environment
often get messy when a lot
is at stake. To make the best decisions going forward, we need
to make sure that we pay
attention to the best information available. This often requires
us to seek out and understand
the most reliable science behind a particular issue. At the same
time, we need to question
that information and recognize the gaps in what is known about
a particular topic. As is often
the case, the loudest voices in the GMO debate are coming from
the two extremes, and the
best path forward may lie somewhere in the middle.
redistribution.
139
Bringing It All Together
Ultimately, debates over the advantages, disadvantages, and
future of genetic engineering and
GMOs boil down to questions of whose opinion counts and how
we should approach risk. Like
many other public health and environmental controversies, it’s
easy to find experts on both
sides of the GMO debate. It’s also the case that some of the
promises and potential for GMOs
have been exaggerated, furthering suspicion that this technology
is really designed to enrich
powerful corporations. However, given the need for an “all of

the above” approach to agri-
culture in order to feed a growing population without wrecking
the environment, it seems
shortsighted to completely rule out the use of genetic
engineering unless stronger evidence
emerges of negative public health or environmental impacts.
Dutch plant scientist Ernst van den Ende summed up the
agricultural challenge facing the
world today by pointing out that we must produce more food in
the next 40 years than all of
the food ever produced by all farmers over the past 8,000 years
(Viviano, 2017). Given the
environmental impacts that agriculture is already imposing on
the planet, we need to figure
out ways to produce food in a more sustainable fashion.
Agricultural activities already push
us close to planetary boundaries for water use, biodiversity loss,
nitrogen pollution, and
global climate change, so doing more of the same is simply not
an option.
In short, a new Green Revolution—one that focuses not just on
crop productivity but also on
environmental considerations, diet choices, food waste,
agricultural policy, and new tech-
nologies—is in order. Ideas for how to bring about this
revolution, both old and new, were
also covered in this chapter, and many of these involve the
actions and efforts of individual
consumers.
The next chapter will take a more in-depth look at one of the
most critical resources needed

for and impacted by agriculture: water. We’ll see that continued
wasteful use of water by
agriculture simply cannot continue, given other pressures being
placed on world water
supplies.
Additional Resources
Food Security and Sustainability
In this TED Talk, Sara Menker describes a rapidly approaching
global food crisis and the
steps we can take today to avoid it.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzA6jRYjVQs
The WRI has an excellent collection of reports and data on
food, agriculture, and their con-
nection to the environment. In particular, the 2018 WRI report
Creating a Sustainable Food
Future provides a “menu” of options for how to feed a world of
10 billion people without
destroying the environment in the process.
• https://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/food
redistribution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzA6jRYjVQs
https://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/food
140

Climate change may threaten the varieties of crops we grow
today. In this TED Talk, Cary
Fowler describes how a global seed bank is being used to
protect our food future.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwl012o8P7I
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine recently published a com-
prehensive report on how science and technology will change
agriculture in the years ahead.
Some are calling the report a “road map for a second green
revolution.”
• https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25059/science-breakthroughs-to-
advance-food
-and-agricultural-research-by-2030
The Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future has
an excellent Food Systems
Primer that contains a lot of resources for anyone interested in
learning more about our
food system and its impact on the environment.
• http://www.foodsystemprimer.org
Food Safety
Scientific American published a troubling story on how drug-
resistant bacteria get into our
food system and threaten our health.
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-drug-
resistant-bacteria
-travel-from-the-farm-to-your-table

Sustainable Farming
The Yale Environment 360 online newsletter/magazine has an
excellent collection of essays
and features on issues of food and agriculture.
• https://e360.yale.edu/topics/food-agriculture
The
Solution
s Journal recently published an interesting essay on “

1 Intersectionality Activity Guide Broadening th

More Related Content

Similar to 1 Intersectionality Activity Guide Broadening th

More from SilvaGraf83

Recently uploaded

1 Intersectionality Activity Guide Broadening th