 |
| Grain elevators behind bean field, Iowa, US. CC Photo by Carl Wycoff on Flickr |
The outcome is that big chunk of America's
'fence-row to fence-row' monocultures, which produce huge quantities of food
and feed, is sold overseas. Such exports
bolster the US economy and stabilise rural America, and have succeeded in
becoming “a central component of global food security”. GM crops, of course, now feature very largely
in these exports.
As the US government pats itself on the
back for these export victories and the benefits accruing to the country,
researchers in Harvard paused to do some homework on the real-life costs of
this grow-to-export drive. Their
conclusion was that it might not be quite the economic boon touted by the policy-makers.
The problem is that US agriculture is based
on economies of scale and chemicals, and is therefore an intensive producer of
pollutants as well as crops.
Even focusing on just one single pollutant
in one single form presented an interesting new take on the subject.
Ammonia is released into the air from
fertilizer applied to fields and from accumulated manure in livestock
farms. It “reacts with other air
pollutants to create tiny particles (less than 2.5 microns wide) that can lodge
deep in the lungs, causing asthma attacks, bronchitis and heart attacks” (Science
Magazine). There is no known safe
level of such particles.
The Harvard team put together the ammonia
emissions associated with major crops and meat productions between 2002 and
2009, and factored in real-life influences such as where and when they were
emitted, and the ambient temperature, humidity and abundance of environmental
reactants. Then, they looked at the
percentages of the crops going for export, and worked out the ammonia-related
health-care costs using equations developed by the US Environmental Protection
Agency.
What the team concluded was that
agricultural exports cost the US $36 billion in annual ammonia-related
healthcare along with 5,100 premature deaths.
From a government point of view, $36
billion might seem a modest price compared to the total value of US
exports. However, the official export
figures don't factor in crop production costs.
When these are subtracted to give the net 'profit' to the US economy,
the reality comes out at a gain of $23 billion in exchange for a cost of $36
billion.
Humanitarian costs were not included in the
calculations.
None of the agri-chemical or biotech
industry traders or middlemen are affected by any of these costs of pollution.
Compare the US situation with Europe. On this side of the Atlantic attention to
fertilizer type used and manure management has led to a drop of nearly
30% in ammonia emissions in the decades 1990 to 2010.
OUR COMMENT
The Harvard researchers looked only at
ammonia in the air. Intensive farming
produces a host of other air pollutants from chemical applications and
fuel. And then there are a stack of
agri-toxins which end up in the soil, water, plants, animals and food.
All of these come at a cost to our health
and well-being, our environment, and our future.
GM crops shore up all these costs
and come with their own unique brand of self-replicating pollution to add to
the problem.
According to our very pro-GM Environment
Secretary “concerns about the health effects of GM foods are “misplaced”, “a
complete nonsense”, and that those voicing the concern about GM “poisons in
foods” are “humbugs”.” That depends on
what you measure.
And, just think what the true cost of
ARGENTINA'S MODELO SOJERO (February 2014) might be.
SOURCES:
Fabien Paulot and Daniel J. Jacob, 2014, Hidden Cost of U.S. Agricultural Exports: Particulate Matter from Ammonia Emissions, Environmental Science & Technology
Ammonia Pollution From Farming May Exact Hefty Health Costs, Science 343 17.01.14
Tom Philpott, Are agriculture Exports Killing Us? Mother Jones, 22.01.14
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.