Save the planet or feed the hungry

Written by Janae Hagen Friday, 29 January 2010 08:00

North Dakota produces far more food than our humble population can consume. After all, there are only so many loaves of wheat bread to eat, barley-aided beer to drink, and sugary sweets that one can handle.

This scenario is repeated all around the world with soybeans, corn and other small grains. It seems as though the bounty of the planet is plentiful enough to fatten the hips of nearly 6.8 billion people.

However, the yields don’t come without consequence.

Before herbicide and supernatural yield promises, farmers stuck to what their family and community needed, offering up a diverse group of foods suitable to their climate. Now, most of what’s grown on farms is just the start of a long, processed journey eventually leading back to your dinner plate.

I’m reading Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” and Pollan challenges readers to figure out how many miles their meals have traveled.

The sticker said my banana was from Costa Rica and my orange juice from Florida. That leaves my oatmeal, applesauce and turkey sandwich unaccounted for.

Even though the necessary ingredients are grown right here in North Dakota, I can almost guarantee nothing local made it to my stomach.

Growing up, I knew exactly where most of my food came from. I helped my uncle pick eggs, my family literally knew our steaks by name and our garden produced a variety of vegetables.

However, our world is facing a tremendous ethical dilemma: eliminate biodiversity in pursuit of filling everyone’s plate, or allowing some to go hungry in order to revitalize the environment.

Earlier this week I went to the documentary “The World According to Monsanto,” with two of my friends who are both pursuing upper-level degrees in plant science.

Through genetically modifying crop genes, Monsanto can design corn, for example, so that it can live through a downpour of chemicals that wipe out any other plant in the field, therefore producing more food and profit.

The entire premise of the film was arguing that Monsanto is trying to take control of the world’s food supply through their gene patents. Looking at their share of the crop market, it’s an easy argument to make.

However, like my friend said, is it the genetically modified crops that are bad or just Monsanto itself?

If the entire planet reverted back to local, organic crops tomorrow, there would be nowhere near enough food for the planet’s population. At the same time, we’d be re-establishing the “diverse” part of biodiversity.

My Darwinian thoughts encourage me to think that we should in fact rely solely on locally produced food – those who have the ability and climate to produce what they need will thrive. Those who can’t will be forced to adapt or die.

At the same time, if we have the technology and knowledge to be able to produce enough food so fewer people go hungry, then we should pursue it. A lot of brainpower would go by the wayside if millions of people starved to death.

Knowing this, my contradictory grocery list won't change. I will still buy local, organic produce when I have the opportunity. But sharing cart space with the Detroit-Lakes-grown tomatoes will be the boxes of Cheerios and mac and cheese that have processed forms of genetically engineered crops harvested in fields far, far away.