As you might recall in my initial post in this series I discussed the unique case of Cuba and the effects on the country's farming practices as a result of the collapse of the Soviet bloc. At the time, Cuba's communist partners provided it with highly subsidized oil, fertilizer and grain that helped meet the dietary needs of its people while allowing Cuba's land to be used for its traditional crops and as a natural paradise for vacationing communists. The Cuban diet at the time was heavy on breads, cereals, meats, dairy and sugar much like the majority of the industrialized world. These were cheap staples that were grown throughout the communist world and easily transported.
Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Cuba has had to re-invent its agricultural identity. With a lack of cheap oil for fertilizers and the running of farm equipment, Cuba turned to a more organic method of farming which saw them increase diversification and increase self sufficiency. Cuba now grows 95% of its fruits and vegetables locally and the typical diet has diversified and contains far more fruits, vegetables and legumes.
However, this has not been the success that it at first glance appears. The cost to the Cuban ecology has been a reduction in the forest canopy as trees were cleared to make room for more farm land and to allow greater sunshine to the crops. Fruits and vegetables have become more expensive as a greater number of labourers has been required to maintain them, though in a strictly communist country this cost has been controlled. And, with limited land and greater pressure to meet dietary needs, Cuba's agricultural industry has little stock left for exporting which leaves an already struggling economy even more depressed.
In addition to the ecological and environmental costs, and despite growing 95% of their fruits and vegetables, Cuban's must still import 50% of the food required to meet their needs. While the country can meet the demands for fruit, vegetables and legumes, this does not give them their full protein requirements without the addition of grains which require more land than Cuba has available. Chickens are the main source of meat protein for the country as land for grazing larger animals is scarce. All of this has seen a drastic change in the Cuban diet with mixed results.
Cuba's experience teaches much about the organic movement, both positive and negative. The positives are what was touched on in my last post, so I won't rehash it here. The greatest negative is the myth that everyone everywhere can eat local organic food year round and meet all our dietary needs. This is just fantasy. In Canada we face the prospect of long winters (even in our warming climate) and the scarcity of fresh produce in the winter would mean a depletion of vitamin C amongst other nutrients. Of course, there are sources available locally for vitamin C, though I hope you like the taste of Pine. Canning and preserving foods is certainly an option (and one I endorse) but the thought of another jar of preserved tomatoes for dinner around March is as appetizing for most as the thought of stewed pig's head. Not to mention, canned and preserved foods do not retain their full nutritional content during the process and usually require added sugar and salt, which may not be advantageous considering our current health.
Cuba also teaches us that organic farming does nothing in the way of reducing the costs of farming to the environment. Farming, whether industrial or organic, requires the clearance of forests and actually diminishes the biodiversity of the planet. In Cuba, the reduction in forests is currently placing greater stress on species that are already under threat. The same is true in parts of Africa and India where we see increased incidents of confrontation between wild life and humans. In some parts of Africa one can make the argument that the wildlife is winning: i.e. the baboon problems in South Africa .
You might all notice that we have travelled through time during this series; Travelling to Cuba gives us a chance to travel back in time. Cuba is stuck in a time prior to World War Two when the greatest changes in agriculture really came about. They lack the machinery and the chemicals that the rest of the world has; and they lack the transportation and markets for their produce that others enjoy. But, what really challenges the Cuban people is the location of their island in the middle of hurricane alley. Despite all of their best efforts and intentions, Cubans could be thrust into further poverty and starvation should a damaging enough hurricane hit just before harvest time. This could be even further catastrophic if it were to happen while the rest of the world's agriculture struggles with droughts, floods, hail etc., and their crops become unavailable for emergency relief.
The Organic Movement loves to time travel about as much as I do with one exception, they only travel backwards and only to a time prior to the 20th century. In the minds of these proponents everything was much rosier and life was idyllic. But this idea is also a myth. Even the most advanced economies in the Victorian age had extreme levels of poverty, child and infant mortality, poorer health, and shortened life expectancy. From a farming standpoint, drought, flood and other natural disasters were all that stood between the well fed and starvation. Famine prior to the 20th century was caused primarily by natural disasters; since then most of the world has been famine free and when they do occur they are caused strictly by human activity. Since the end of World War Two, human life expectancy has climbed year over year despite the damages of the industrial farms and the mistakes of agricultural science.
The organic movement is not without its hazards as well. The largest food poisoning episode in Europe appears to have been caused by organic produce. The culprit is E-coli and sequencing of the disease in bean sprouts identified that the problem is not just in the fertilizing stage but exists in the seeds themselves, whether grown organically or not (btw: do not eat raw bean sprouts ever). Add to this episode the water contamination from manure in Walkerton, which may not have occurred on a certified organic farm but was certainly a method of fertilization that is acceptable in organic practice; the contamination of spinach on farms in California; and the poisoning of the poster boy of organic, Prince Charles' own brand of potato chips.
One last myth about organic is that local is better. Again, under scrutiny this does not hold up. As I said before, some places are not capable of growing some produce and even when they can the yields and quality may suffer. The environmental benefits of locally grown may also be over estimated as researchers look at the efficiency of transportation in terms of cost per kilogram of food. And if local, organic food is supposed to taste better then that argument, too, has some holes in it.
With no clear indication that organic is better tasting, better for you or, in some regards, better for the environment is there then a better solution and must we just throw out all of the ideas of the organic movement? I hope to give you a chance to decide that for yourselves in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment