Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP1/Article 5: Food Ark

Summary

“Food Ark”, written by Charles Siebert, was published in July 2011 in National Geographic Magazine. It focuses on describing the importance of food varieties and describes how people establish “seed banks” to prevent food varieties extinction, in order to deal with unpredictable famines and disasters in the future.

Siebert begins this article with the introduction of “one of the largest nongovernment-owned seed banks in the United States” -- Diane Ott Whealy’s “Heritage Farm” in Decorah, Iowa. This heritage farm started with the protection of Diane's great grandfather’s “morning glory and his German Pink tomato,” which were brought to America from Bavaria in 1870. With this inspiration, Diane and her husband decided to open their heritage farm as “home to the Seed Savers Exchange.” It has attracted “more than 13000” people to become members and bring thousands of their heirloom varieties of seeds.

Later, Siebert emphasizes that most people fail to take into account that “food varieties extinction is happening all over the world” with a extreme speed. For instance, there were 7,000 kinds of apples grown in the 1800s; however, now “fewer than a hundred remain.” Same story happened to rice and wheat. The following is an interesting diagram depicting the large decrease in seed varieties in the century. A study by the Rural Advancement Foundation in 1983 compared the number of varieties of 66 different crops in 1903 and 1983, and found that around 93 percent of the seed varieties available in 1903 had become extinct.

According to Siebert, food varieties extinction is a big problem that could cause wide-scale famine in the future. Here, Siebert uses Ug99, “a virulent and fast-mutating strain of one of wheat's oldest adversaries -- Puccinia graminis,” as an example to support his argument. In this case, evidence shows that “90% of the world's wheat is defenseless against Ug99.” This proves how important it is to protect the diversity of wheat to make sure some varieties of wheat can survive if this fungus continues to spread. Another famous example of the detriment which can occur from depending on one variety of a major food staple comes from the great Irish potato famine of 1845. The Irish were relying heavily on the Lumper potato for a food source, but this variety was susceptible to Phytophthora infestans, a type of fungus, that wiped out most of the Lumper potatoes in the entire country. This lead to a widespread famine, one that could result again if the world's farmers continue to rely on growing only a few varieties of our major food staples.

Furthermore, Siebert starts to explain the reason for why the diversity of each kind of food is decreasing. Many farmers only pay attention to which specific varieties can increase their production. Here, Siebert provides us a term: Green Revolution. In wikipedia, it “refers to a series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s, that increased agriculture production around the world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution However, in this case, Siebert suggests that we don't blindly adapt a completely optimistic point of view regarding the green revolution. He mentions that “over time farmers came to rely heavily on broadly adapted, high-yield crops to the exclusion of varieties adapted to local conditions.” Therefore, farmers only focus on planting several, highly productive varieties, and other kinds are slowly vanishing. A sentence from this article encapsulates this situation well: “in our focus on increasing the amount of food we produce today, we have accidentally put ourselves at risk for food shortages in the future.”

Another serious issue associated with this topic is that farmers in a lot of developing countries are encouraged to produce these “high-yield varieties” through subsidies given by the government and aid organizations; however, those new plants need extra care such as “fertilizers, pesticides, high-protein feeds, and medication” to survive. In this case, most poor famers from those countries cannot afford it. Therefore, the article implies that we should encourage famers to choose local varieties rather than those famous kinds in order to minimize the affects of unpredictable disasters, through having a greater crop diversity, as well as save their spending.

In the end, Siebert suggests that we “safely store the seeds of as many different crop varieties as we can before they disappear forever.” It is also recommended that farmers continue to plant crops which the area has been raising for generations. These varieties have typically adapted to the local environment, and require much less pesticides and fertilizers to produce a good yield. Having many varieties is the best way to face environmental changes and possible crop diseases in the future. This way, if one variety is wiped out by disease, there will still be other varieties to support the local population. It is also crucial to keep the local agricultural knowledge alive, so that future generations can be taught about their land and crops. Seed banks are also very important, the likes of which can be traced back to 1926, and Russian botanist Nikolay Vavilov. Nowadays, there are about “1,400 seed banks” all over the world which established by many professional agricultural organizations, non-government based agricultural enthusiasts, and famers who have a sense of the crisis. Food is very important to keep our human beings living and multiplying on this land. Siebert’s study on food varieties suggests a wise choice for us: we should be prepared before any disasters come to us in the unpredictable future.

Picture from: http://www.cityharvestcoop.com/?p=342

Analysis

Unlike previous articles we have discussed so far, the main idea of this article is not focusing on the topic of environmental pollution due to agricultural development. However, the main theme of this article still closely tied to the relations between economics and environment. When it comes to the study of environment, "sustainable development" is the central topic we usually concentrate on. Definition from Wikipedia suggests that sustainable development is “a pattern of resource use, that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development This article states that we are breaking sustainable development patterns in some agricultural practices for economic reasons.

From the individual farmers' point of view, we always attempt to maximize profit. In most cases of agricultural practices, that means we need to maximize production. Therefore, farmers only choose to plant several highly productive varieties. As a result, other kinds are slowly vanish. Siebert points out that “food varieties extinction” leads us to a very dangerous position. In this case, we put too much effort to maximize the agricultural output; however, at the same time, we are slowly giving up the possibility for us and for our future generation to survive in some unpredictable food crises. As we know, many foods we are not able to live without for daily lives, such as bread for westerners and rice for eastern people. Siebert mentions that if some outside conditions such as “disease or future climate change” results mass killing of those plants in many kinds, we have to count on few kinds that can survive in order to keep supporting our daily needs.

One source of social inefficiency regarding food production in developing countries is the fact that imported, well-known variety seeds are subsidized by the government and charitable organizations. This gives farmers an incentive to buy these cheaper seeds, but this small cost savings may be offset by the extra fertilizer, high-protein feeds and pesticides that these crops require to survive, as they have not adapted to the local conditions like the local varieties have. Changing these subsidies to instead subsidize local varieties of crops could be a no-cost solution, which would benefit farmers greatly through reduced risk of crop decimation in the event of a crop disease or environmental changes.

Normally, in the case of a supply-side externality, too much of the good is being produced for social efficiency to result. However, in this case, the article points out our food supply might need to double in future decades to be able to feed the world's growing population. Thus, when switching back to multi-variety, indigenous plants and animals as a major food source for the world's population, we need to be sure that we won't sacrifice productivity. However, studies done by Melaku Worede, a world-renowned plant geneticist from Ethiopia, have shown that using "high-yielding local seeds -- in combination with natural fertilizers and techniques such as intercropping" has increased yields 15 percent more than generic, mass-imported breeds. This shows that having farmers, who live in all different places in the world, use the same variety of crop is not efficient. The yields from the crops can be larger by growing locally breed plants which are genetically more capable of dealing with the local environment, without the use of pesticides and other chemicals. In the future, our planet could also have much more extreme temperatures, so using locally adapted plants and animals will help reduce food shortages due to adverse conditions.

The current situation does not seem to be socially efficient. There is a high probability of a large cost to society in the near future, due to the problem of everyone planting the same kinds of crops and the potential for crop diseases to wipe out food sources for people around the world. The example in the article of Ug99, a crop disease affecting certain varieties of wheat, is particularly frightening. Not only would there be monetary costs to this fungus spreading, such as an estimated one billion dollars of wheat to be at risk in the United States alone, but it could also leave one billion people without their primary food source.

It is difficult to find solutions to this problem, as it is not practical for the government to stipulate that farmers must farm heirloom and local varieties of crops. Incentive-based programs might work, with heirloom and local seeds being subsidized by the government. The government could also put more money into seed banks, and raise awareness about these issues. The most effective solution may come from consumers themselves, because if more people use their consumption decisions to send a message to producers that they want more varieties of food, market forces will ensure producers listen. For example, people could frequent their local farmers markets more often, as these markets often have many more varieties of crops. It might take action on the part of individuals to move this situation to a more socially efficient one.

Prof's Comments

This is a public goods style of problem. The value of heritage varieties is like insurance. However, the cost of providing this insurance is the loss in profit to the farmer. To get people to produce heritage varieties, some incentive is required. The fact that people are gaining an interest in them is fortunate, as it creates this incentive. Otherwise, it would require some sort of government subsidy to encourage the growth of these, or direct government production.

8.5/10