You ask great questions! Some responses:
<<Can anyone suggest resources that discuss the cost of conventional
agriculture compared to that of alternative/sustainable agriculture. I'm=
interested in all costs - social, environmental, etc.>>
One article that I found quite interesting was by Cornell entymologist
David Pimentel (et al) in Bioscience, Vol. 42, No. 10 (1992). This is
published by The American Institute of Biological Sciences. In this
article, they do a well-documented analysis of the indirect costs of
pesticide use in the U.S. They say their analysis is conservative - what =
is
more easily quantified and shown - and walk through each category - human=
health, animal poisonings, contaminated products, destruction of benefici=
al
natural predators and parasites, pesticide resistance in pests, honeybee
and pollination losses, crop losses, fishery losses, bird losses,
groundwater and surface water contamination, and government regulations t=
o
(try to) reduce some of this damage. =
They conclude that pesticides, conservatively, cost the U.S. each year at=
least $8 billion in indirect costs. These are costs that might not show =
up
when we buy a particular piece of produce, but instead show up in our
health care costs, taxes, etc. Pimentel feels there are specific reasons=
that the true figure is likely much higher.
Also, there have been some posts on SANet re: issues like yields in
conventional vs. organic. For instance, "STUDIES SHOW SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE MEASURES UP TO CONVENTIONAL YIELDS" (which I've attached belo=
w)
and the recent story from Rodale Institute, which compared their
conventional and organic tests plots over 15 years so far, and noted that=
yields were about the same during wet years, but organic was better in dr=
y
years. (I can send you that one, if you didn't get it.)
Also, did you happen to notice the piece "ECOSYSTEMS PROVIDE VALUABLE
"SERVICES" WORTH $33 TRILLION, STUDY FINDS" within the 6/2 SANet email of=
"Alternative Agriculture News, 6/97"? If not, I'd be glad to send you a
copy of it.
<<On a personal note, as I travel down the road to risk reduction in my
own life, I can't help but wonder how much more I will need to spend
to find less risky alternatives to the "common" American existence. =
Fortunately, I'm able to afford many of these choices. I have to admit
concern for those who can not afford to do the same. <snip> I wonder wh=
y
risk reduction seems to be so expensive these days. Fewer choices,
greater risks?>>
I think a key reason for this dynamic is the whole issue of "externalized=
costs". The current economic structure encourages and rewards externalizi=
ng
your costs - making someone else pay. So a company that can dump its wast=
e
in the community river has lower costs than the one who invests in
technology to clean that water before dumping it. =
We've tried to balance this mechanism with environmental laws and such,
which I believe do help, but business chafes at these laws, because the
underlying mechanism is always looking at how to reduce costs. Even for
someone who remembers the values higher than money that these laws are at=
least supposed to represent - a clean environment, safe working condition=
s,
taking care of other human beings and living creatures, etc. - can be
stressed between these values and the need to compete on the economic
sphere. =
Some handle this tension by optimizing the equation as best they can (bei=
ng
as environmental as possible, and looking for economies elsewhere), some =
by
being creative and innovative (for example, finding value in their waste
stream to other companies or themselves; or finding a market
opportunity/sales point in more responsible practices), and some by
collapsing into denial and self-interest ("I have to take care of myself,=
my company; I can't concern myself with how my actions effect others). =
Still, underlying, there is a real tension, in the way the economic syste=
m
is currently designed. =
Unfortunately, some moves like flattening trade barriers and the way
NAFTA/GATT and the World Trade Organization are being setup will exacerba=
te
this problem - for instance, the new international laws that are saying
that when nations choose, for instance, to have principles that dolphins
are not being harmed when catching tuna, that rather than this being seen=
as the wise principled stand it is, this is viewed in the new systemas a
"restraint of trade" in a system where only money and no other values are=
allowed to be considered. This is already happening and will likely get
much worse, if these principles continue to be expanded in the
international sphere. This troubles me deeply.
There are things we can do at a consumer level to encourage higher values=
than money. As you say, some of us can choose to pay more, and we can vo=
te
for our values in this way. And, as you say, some can't. We also can use=
innovation - such as those people who create organic urban gardens in poo=
r
areas, where people can work in the garden - for all the learning,
nourishment, and empowerment that creates - and sometimes get some income=
,
from selling the food - and then they can keep some food for themselves a=
nd
their families as part of the deal. Or we can support CSAs, which can
reduce consumer costs while increasing farmer income (at least in the
ideal), by cutting out the middleman, as well as providing other benefits=
to consumers, such as a relationship with the farmer and farm for people
and their children.
And we can also, as citizens, work to support re-examination of the
underlying system. You might be quite interested in a book by Paul Hawken=
caled "The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability". In it, =
he
asserts a model for what characteristics an ideal economic system should
have - including the notion that it needs to honor everyone's desire to
"save a buck" and make it so that one doesn't have to choose between that=
and "doing the right thing." =
One way to do that - and this gets to the heart of your question, I belie=
ve
- is to seek to re-internalize the externalized costs, so that when we go=
to buy a product, it more accurately reflects the true costs of that
product. Then, the market mechanism can better work in alignment with
"doing the right thing", vs. being so opposed to it. This may sound
impossible, from our current way of thinking, but once one asks the
question about how one might do it, interesting ideas emerge. I think
Hawken makes a valuable contribution to this process in his book, by layi=
ng
out the framework of a new model, then starting to sketch in what that
might look like. This supports us all, I believe, in asking these
questions too, and starting to develop answers of our own. =
For instance, he talks about establishing 4 categories of products, with
different rules about each one. If something is (1) disposable, then it
should decompose into natural elements in x amount of time, etc. If
something is (2) durable, like cars and refridgerators, then it is the
responsibility of the manufacturer at the end of its lifetime to dispose =
of
responsibly. As I understand it, this latter one is already being done in=
Germany, and is positively impacting how cars are designed (they realized=
that certain designs were hard to recycle, for instance because of toxic
materials, and have changed to different designs). I believe I read
somewhere that the car companies are saving money with improved designs a=
nd
recovered materials - i.e., getting unexpected benefits - while of course=
we would expect less poisoning of the environment. =
I don't know all the implementation details, but I find these ideas quite=
provocative and powerful in examining how we can establish an economic
system that doesn't destroy (spend out) our natural capital at an
outrageous rate, for short-term individual gain but long-term community
loss - just because it doesn't show up on the balance sheets. (What is t=
he
cost when a forest is clearcut? On the balance sheet, there is only incom=
e.
Plus, the land can now be used for a shopping center. Still, there is a=
loss that is not in the accounting - and should be. If it did,then perha=
ps
recycling and using recycled products would show up as having the the tru=
e
long-term economic wisdom they have.)
Of course, some costs can't be quantified. The emotional cost of disease=
=2E
The human cost of a lost community and its wisdom. The degradation of
democracy and personal choice about risk. And I don't think we should wai=
t
until we can quantify every risk, for that can take too long to really
protect us and be too expensive to implement. But perhaps if we structur=
e
responsibility and wisdom like the above into our economic "game rules" -=
if we seek to avoid the pollution in the first place, rather than try to
calculate an "ok" amount of poisoning people - then I think it will be
easier to at least head the ship in the right direction toward a better
future for us all.
I hope you find these leads and this info useful in your quest - =
Best regards -
Patricia Dines
--- FORWARD ---
From: INTERNET:craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 1996, 4:18 AM
Subject: request
dear sanet'ers . . . =
the following item came across agnet recently . . .
STUDIES SHOW SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MEASURES UP TO CONVENTIONAL YIELDS =
11 Jul 1996
Manitoba Co-operator
A series of stories about organic agriculture. A study just released by
North =
Dakota State University found the overall incomes of sustainable farmers
lag =
behind those of conventional farmers. But when their incomes were compare=
d
on =
a per-acre basis, the gap between the two groups closed. The second
largest =
income source for sustainable farmers was livestock sales, while governme=
nt
program payments were the second largest income source for conventional =
farmers. The study found that sustainable farmers grew more crops, and
often =
included alternative crops such as alfalfa, buckwheat, hay, millet, oats =
or
rye. They nearly always raised livestock as well. Conventional farmers gr=
ew
more soybeans and wheat. =
AGnet July 12/96
Douglas A Powell <dpowell@uoguelph.ca>
Saturday 13 July 1996 3:49 AM
AGNET IS SPONSORED BY THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL=
=
AFFAIRS PLANTS PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH