the farming industry has already begun finding more sustainable farming techniques to combat the high food demand. the morning star company is an agribusiness and food processing company that embodies sustainable farming. this california-based company specializes in tomato products, primarily paste, and has developed numerous techniques in the processing of their crops that not only benefit the company itself, but has a positive impact on other agriculture around them.

morning star harvests as close to 100% of their tomatoes as possible. since the company primarily makes paste, they are able to use the green tomatoes that were not quite ripe when it was time to harvest, according to morning star employee marc haywood.

once in the processing plant, the company has a recycling water system to empty the field trucks and transport the crop around the facility. morning star also makes great use of their byproducts; plant waste is used to fertilize their fields or transported to local farms for no profit to be used as animal feed. these types of sustainable practices are crucial, and will need to spread throughout the industry moving forward.

while traditional farming progressions are a necessity in creating a sustainable food supply for the world, these advances alone won’t be enough. genetically engineered and modified crops will need to become more commonplace in order to feed the planet.

the terms “genetically engineered” and “genetically modified” are now commonly used in supermarkets and coffee house conversations, it is possible that the terms are not clearly defined by their users.

according to keith edmisten, ph.d., a professor of crop science at nc state university, as reported in a 2016 study, “genetic modification refers to a range of methods (such as selection, hybridization, and induced mutation) used to alter the genetic composition of domesticated plants and animals to achieve a desired result.

“genetic engineering is one type of genetic modification that involves the intentional introduction of a targeted change in a plant, animal, or microbial gene sequence to achieve a specific result.”

accepting genetically engineered and modified foods by the public would be a huge step toward a sustainable food supply. the daunting task of feeding the planet is highlighted by pamela ronald and raoul adamchak in their book “tomorrow’s table” (2018): “the world faces an enormous challenge. food production needs to rise by 50% by 2050 in order to feed the growing population, which will expand from the current 7.6 billion to an estimated 10 billion by mid-century—the equivalent of adding the population of two chinas.”

this harsh reality will need to be combated with serious scientific advances, both when manufacturing seeds and the actual farming of crops.

while a common argument against gmos include the fact that the seeds are more expensive, leaving corporate farms to run family-owned operations out of business, farms on any level of production can, and are, benefiting from growing modified crops. farmers are able to grow crops that are drought-resistant so they don’t lose their fields during a dry spell, or insect-resistant crops so they don’t have to spray harmful pesticides. seed companies are constantly developing modifications to help farmers maximize their yields.

john purcell, head of vegetables r&d for bayer (the largest seed producer in the world), says they focus on three aspects when modifying an organism: protection in the field to prevent loss, ship-ability of the crop, and the product’s shelf life. pursuing these characteristics through advanced breeding technology will be crucial for the planet moving forward, in terms of the growing population as well as climate change. the agriculture industry, “will have to continue to find solutions as agriculture will be monumentally impacted by climate change,” purcell said.

not only can genetically modified crops maximize and enhance farms efficiency and yield, it has already proven to save an industry. the papaya crop, a staple in hawaiian culture, would have been wiped out of the islands due to disease had it not been for genetically engineered seeds. according to “tomorrow’s table,” ringspot virus had devastated the hawaiian papaya fields in the 1990s when there was not currently a method to control the virus.

dennis gonsalves and his team are credited with developing a virus-resistant papaya seed which was distributed to local growers at no cost. the genetically engineered papaya produced a yield that was 20 times higher than the traditional papaya crop. the hawaiian industry recovered and flourished after the introduction of the new seeds, and production grew from 26 million pounds to 40 million pounds of papaya from 1998 to 2001, according to gonsalves.

health is another frequent argument against genetically modified crops. there is a public misconception that gmo’s and genetically engineered crops are dangerous to eat- this is a widely believed notion that is largely due scare propaganda from both food companies and organic activists. apart from being approved by the fda, there have been zero reports of health hazards related to genetically engineered or modified crops.

“just to be clear, there has never been a single reputable, peer-reviewed study that has found any link between the consumption of genetically modified foods and adverse health effects,” wrote aaron larsen, a postdoctoral fellow at harvard’s department of chemistry and chemical biology. “perhaps more importantly, there is no proposed mechanism that can explain why such a link could exist.”

it seems that the idea that gmos are harmful has been inflated and pushed by propaganda and unnecessary food labeling. while it is impossible to prove a food is safe, gmos on the market have been fda approved and have a clean record when it comes to public health.

not only are gmo and genetically engineered crops safe to eat, there are situations around the world where these crops are needed to nurture and benefit populations. a prime example of this is golden rice. this rice was engineered to contain higher levels of carotenoids, which are precursors to vitamin a in order to help populations that are vitamin-a deficient — particularly bangladesh, indonesia, and the philippines, according to “tomorrow’s table.” introducing rice that is high in vitamin a is crucial, and potentially life-changing in these regions. one in five preschool aged children are vitamin a-deficient in bangladesh, according to the world health organization’s vitamin a-deficiency database, as reported by the daily star.

feeding a growing humanity is a reality that the planet needs to face. genetically modified and engineered crops will be necessary to provide a food supply for our population in the coming years. not only are these crops safe to eat, but they can benefit everyone involved in the process.

this august, i traveled to woodland, california, with planet forward to learn about the large-scale farming operations that are currently feeding the united states. my goal for this trip was to see the other side of agriculture — the genetically modified and industrial side — and decide for myself what sustainable farming looks like.

at the kenyon farm, we are in a temperate deciduous biome. we get plenty of rain, grow crops that make sense in our cold hardiness zone, and let the outskirts of our land rest as natural forests. the central valley of california, on the other hand, is naturally a desert, but now water is diverted for irrigation and farmers can control the exact amount going to their fields. this provides the perfect conditions for growing a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables that feed the u.s.

for most of the summer, there isn’t a single cloud in the sky. here, plants get all the sun they can handle, and farmers will often shade crops to prevent them from getting sunburnt. this valley, with irrigation, provides the ideal conditions for farmers to control what their plants receive, meaning they get high yields and have the potential for precise data collection and experimentation. yet there is a tension here, between diverting water from natural ecosystems and providing fresh, nutritious food to people across the country.

many people see small- and large-scale agriculture at two opposite ends of a spectrum, as well as conventional and organic farms in the u.s. many environmentalists presume that small farmers are responsible stewards of the land and that they follow organic practices. in a similar vein, many people presume that large, conventional operations produce waste without regard for the environment.

as a farmer myself, i was curious to see what the “other side” is doing to have such a negative reputation with environmental groups. at the same time, i cannot ignore the reality that we produce a lot of our food today using industrialized agriculture. and, as our climate continues to change, farmers must adapt to new conditions while still providing nutrient rich, full diets for our exploding global population. these contradictions lead me to think that the ecological industrialization of agriculture will be necessary and inevitable.

with these various priorities and concerns in farming, i think that a new definition of sustainability will have to be adopted to balance seemingly competing interests, the large-scale with the ecologically sound methods of farming. in national geographic’s “a five-step plan to feeding the world” by jonathan foley, the idea of blending organic and conventional methods is discussed:

“those who favor conventional agriculture talk about how modern mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, and improved genetics can increase yields to help meet demand. and they’re right. meanwhile proponents of local and organic farms counter that the world’s small farmers could increase yields plenty—and help themselves out of poverty—by adopting techniques that improve fertility without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. they’re right too.”

foley proposes a discussion of diverse farming methods that isn’t framed as an argument, because both movements are recognizing important needs of humanity and the earth. if we hope to reconcile people with the natural world around us, we must also recognize that we will always have some impact on our environment if we keep producing food. now it’s up to us to decide what that impact will be.

the morning star tomato processing plant, our first stop in woodland, is the largest tomato processing plant in the world. with that reputation, i expected to have some misgivings about how they process their tomatoes. i realized, however, that i had this bias as an environmentalist simply because morning star is such a large plant.

in reality, morning star makes informed decisions about its waste management strategies and this often saves the company time and money, therefore finding greater efficiencies. reducing environmental impacts can be profitable. all of morning star’s tomatoes come from local growers, most within an hour’s drive from the time of harvest. water used at the plant is recycled and flows by gravity. when this water eventually becomes waste, it is used as fertilizer on the adjacent acres of grassland, which the company bails as hay sells to local livestock operations.

morning star boasts that its operation is virtually zero waste, with pomace (the leftover skin, seeds, and stems from tomatoes) leaving the plant as a byproduct that is sold to cat and dog food companies, cattle ranches, or is used for compost.

while these waste-reducing practices are to be applauded, the scale of morning star’s operation does have some waste built in to it. as we drove up to the plant, the roads were littered with bright red tomatoes that had fallen off the trucks on their way from being harvested.

when our group of students asked about this food waste, renee, who works at morning star, said that it’s not worth their time to tarp the trucks and prevent this loss. tarping would add 5 minutes in the field and 5 more at the plant: time that the company does not have when running 24/7 for 3 short months of the year during the tomato harvest season. morning star would rather keep the system moving and leave those tomatoes behind, a loss that may have to be accepted when the corporation processes “over 25% of the california processing tomato production, supplying 40% of the u.s. ingredient tomato paste and diced tomato markets.” 

the question remains whether less wasteful practices would have a significant impact on the amount of tomatoes that the plant can process, because producing food is their primary concern.

during the tour of the morning star facility, it was apparent that the ideas of organic agriculture, conventional agriculture, conventional breeding, and genetic modification were getting confused in our everyday discourse about these issues.

grace warner, a sales representative for bayer seeds, clarified that organic and conventional agriculture refer to how the plant is grown, and that this has nothing to do with where the seeds come from. on the other hand, both conventional breeding and genetic engineering are ways of breeding plants (i.e., producing desired seed), and both are forms of genetic modification.

while genetic engineering is a purposeful addition of select genes in a lab, in conventional breeding, humans select for desirable traits and modify the gene pool simply by planting what we like. this has been happening for thousands of years; sticky rice, sweet potatoes, sweet corn, and granny smith apples are all examples of plants whose gene pools have been modified, reflecting what humans desire and prefer. michael pollan’s “the botany of desire,” details how humans have shaped the environments, plants, and animals around us since the advent of agriculture.

the morning star employees told us that they do not purchase organically grown tomatoes. in their eyes, the two main setbacks of organic agriculture are that organic farmers cannot plant genetically engineered seed, and they cannot use pesticides like glyphosate on those crops.

raoul adamchak, who manages the certified organic farm at uc davis, feels that organic and conventional growers could actually learn from each other’s practices. he says that only 1% of the agricultural land in the u.s. is farmed organically, while the other 99% is farmed using conventional methods. he believes that conventional growers can learn about ecological land management from organic growers, such as planting cover crops, using low-till practices, and implementing integrated pest management systems (ipm).

on the other hand, if organic farmers could plant seed that is genetically engineered to be resistant to certain pests, organic operations would not have to spend as much money or labor spraying certified organic herbicides and pesticides on their crops. one of the most important potential impacts of organic farmers accepting genetically engineered (ge) seed would be that consumers may start to change their views on ge and realize how this technology can benefit organic farmers (in terms of reducing resource, land, energy, and pesticide use).

this move could make ecological farming more common across the u.s. by breaking down the existing duality between organic and conventional growers.

raoul cites an important interdependence between organic and conventional farmers. organic producers prefer to use composted manure on their fields, and when their own operations do not involve compost or livestock, they will often purchase manure from local, conventional livestock operations. yet these conventionally grown animals are often fed ge corn or soybean, providing vital nutrients to organic farmers and allowing them to avoid using synthetic fertilizers. without the livestock that is fed ge crops, it’s possible that organic farmers would not have enough organic fertilizer to run their operations. raoul’s point here is that the two methods of farming are more interdependent than most people realize, and working together can often benefit both sides.

i asked raoul if he thought allowing genetically engineered seeds into organic practices would open up the door for organic farmers to plant crops engineered to withstand pesticides, and then spray their fields with those pesticides. he laughed at the thought of engineering a crop to be resistant to citrus juice, a common herbicide in organic farming. his point was that even if organic farmers would accept genetically engineered seed, they would still avoid spraying when they could, and if necessary, only spray what is certified organic. this is because most organic farmers want to reduce damaging pesticide use, not increase it.

planting genetically engineered seed would allow organic farmers to plant crops that are resistant to the pests that current organic pesticides are ineffective in attacking. it would also open up the door for organic farmers to plant crops that have been engineered for higher yields; a common criticism of organic operations is that they produce lower yields, and this is one reason that more farms are not organic. ge crops would open many avenues for organic farmers, because they could plant crops engineered to have higher nutritional content, for example, if such a crop was desired by consumers in the u.s. in the future.

technology plays a large role in agriculture today, with an increasing number of innovations being used on america’s farms and across the globe. some examples are gps systems that allow farmers to track what amount of water and fertilizer goes into each plot of their land, genetic engineering to enhance flood tolerance in rice, and the newest, most precise tractors for harvesting.

many farmers are passionate about these new technologies because they make their lives easier, for example by limiting the hours farmers work and the physical labor they exert. yet the sustainable agriculture movement does not always embrace industrial technologies because these machines often release carbon from the soil and burn fossil fuels, while there still remains an ecological way to farm without creating so much waste and pollution.

john purcell, the vegetable r&d lead at bayer, views technology as a positive in agriculture. “that’s how food production is done,” he says. “it can’t be a romantic ideal.” while the romantic vision of sustainable agriculture would include practices like no tillage, crop rotation and integration, and not using genetically engineered or modified crops, few large farmers implement these methods.

many of today’s career farmers are financially tied to their farming practices, investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into tractors and machinery. they also are tied to their business relations because of these investments. the question remains whether ecological farming methods, like those used on organic farms, could produce as much as industrial methods do. i don’t blame a farmer that isn’t willing to bet their livelihood on being more ecological. on the other hand, i personally wouldn’t choose to invest my livelihood in expensive industrial technologies as a young farmer getting into the field today. i hope to be open to innovation and new methods, and want the opportunity to change my practices when the world around me is doing the same.

john believes that the younger generation of farmers will be more apt to use new technologies, because tech comes more naturally to us. as a young farmer, i have to admit that some of these technologies appeal to me, but others don’t. i would love to collect data on the nutrients added to my fields and have gps maps of my land. yet i’m not interested in investing in huge tractor equipment that cuts through land, releasing carbon from the soil and burning carbon in the process. i hope that there’s a way to respect the integrity of the land and retain the natural ecology of a place, while producing enough food for our global population through innovation. if this solution is only possible with the use of ge crops that are more resilient, more nutritious, and more resource efficient to grow, then i would support the use of genetic engineering in organic agriculture.

john says that “waste, energy, water, and soil all should be in confluence,” and that a farmer who implements this “fits any definition of sustainability.” i think that in order to be sustainable, farmers will have to be willing to learn about the more efficient and nutritious ways to feed the world, even if that means integrating new technologies and practices into their current systems. mitigating the effects of global climate change and our exploding global population will require that we adapt to the circumstances and tools at our disposal.

as both a farmer and an environmentalist myself, i used to see organic farming, as it exists today, as the solution that would allow humanity to grow fresh food and protect our planet. what i realized, however, was that a large-scale industry like morning star can take steps to mitigate waste and compost nutrients, and so can an organic farm like the one at uc davis. and we must recognize that the large-scale operations keep food on our tables. there are markets for the tomato paste processed at morning star, and for uc davis figs grown locally and organically.

these two types of farming systems actually complement one another because they provide people in the u.s. with the food they want to buy, and they give us options. whether i’m at home on the kenyon farm in ohio or touring a bayer plant research facility, i can come across a perfectly ripe tomato on the vine, pluck it off and taste the same juicy sweetness. i think as long as people have enough to eat, we should work to make our farming is as ecologically sound as possible, so that we can ensure food security into the future.

thankfully, researchers have developed a potential solution which could quickly end the widespread suffering caused by vitamin a deficiency (vad). but one might be discouraged to learn that this cure was developed back in 1999, and it has yet to be implemented on a broad scale.

golden rice was heralded as a miracle cure when it was initially developed at the end of the 20th century to combat vad in developing countries. created by ingo potrykus, peter beyer, and their research teams, the genetically modified rice strain has the added benefit of producing beta-carotene, a compound which can be converted into vitamin a once ingested. the genes necessary for this new function were taken from naturally occurring soil bacteria, daffodil flowers, and domestic corn, where it was then inserted into natural rice. by adding beta-carotene to the grains of rice, an estimated 144 grams of golden rice must be consumed to fulfill the daily dietary requirements of vitamin a.

supporters of the new strain of rice see widespread potential in preventing vad by incorporating golden rice into the diet of children in developing countries. rice is seen as a particularly useful medium for transmission of vitamin a since it is the staple food of many asian countries where vad is prevalent. thus, wide scale adoption of golden rice could end child blindness and death due to vitamin a deficiency.

despite the potential benefits, the gmo nature of golden rice has brought criticism. criticism which has significantly slowed the implementation of the food source for the people who need it most. advocacy groups such as greenpeace, center for food safety, and the non-gmo project have all countered the potential benefits of golden rice by raising concerns about food safety, biodiversity, and unnatural development. opposition towards golden rice has resulted in real world consequences, such as in 2013 when an anti-gmo group broke into a golden rice research facility in the philippines and destroyed fields as a form of protest.

losing a single field of research rice is a minor setback for researchers, however such a stunt changes the way everyday people think about gmo crops such as golden rice. anti-gmo advocacy groups use such publicity tactics to turn the public’s perception of golden rice from that of a potential savior to those at risk for vad, to one of a controversial and dangerous technology. when golden rice is routinely reported on in this context of controversy and disagreement, it changes how the public will view efforts to implement the food source on a broad scale.

in the face of this dilemma, it is important to note that 88% of aaas scientists believe that gmo crops are safe to eat. and a comprehensive report by the national academies of sciences, engineering and medicine concluded that gm crops are safe to eat and are not harmful to the environment.

there seems to be scientific consensus on the safety of gmo crops such as golden rice, yet the public remain skeptical thanks in large part to the campaigns put on by anti-gmo groups. early initiatives to test golden rice are underway in the philippines and bangladesh, however gmo concerns have slowed the progress of these movements. it is clear public perception will have to take a significant turn before broad distribution of the life-saving rice can begin in the regions most affected by vitamin a deficiency.

devouring my grandmother’s meatballs and my grandfather’s gnocchi at the dinner table on sunday night lies at the heart of some of my favorite memories growing up. food brings my family together. i can always buy premade meatballs or pasta, but my family’s passion and connection would be replaced with generic processed products and an arguably less enjoyable meal. food is more than essential, so why not make the best possible choice with yours?

organic foods, foods grown without using synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, are one good choice you can make. they can be easily identified by those tiny green usda certified organic labels. since 2010, sales of organic foods have increased by about 10% annually, which is an incredible amount of growth by industry standards. this can only mean good things for people who buy food – every family in the u.s.

i can tell from the endless checkout lines in my local whole foods that despite the slightly more expensive cost of organic foods, organic food and drink sales are on the rise. sales of organic products in the united states jumped to $35.1 billion in 2013, up 11.5% from the previous year’s $31.5 billion and was the fastest growth rate in five years.

eating healthy or organic doesn’t mean i never grab my favorite ben & jerry’s ice cream carton, or spend a night at the mcdonald’s down the street with friends eating big macs. the key is to do everything in moderation. while these foods provide “empty calories,” lots of calories with little nutritional benefits, organic foods provide more effective antioxidants that aid in preventing cancer, vision problems and cognitive malfunctions as well as improving heart health. pesticide-free produce may not look as appetizing, but if you want fewer harmful chemicals such as cadmium that have been linked to kidney damage and cancer in your body and in the bodies of your family, make the organic choice.

the impact isn’t just on your health – your favorite organic cauliflower or ginger root has far more positive environmental effects than conventional food. organic agriculture mitigates the greenhouse effect and global warming by sequestering carbon in the soil.  furthermore, replacing pesticides with natural fertilizers such as compost prevents groundwater pollution and enhances soil structure and water infiltration. organic farming even produces more biodiversity than other farming systems.

regardless of what aisle i venture through, organic foods are becoming more prominent. about three fourths of american grocery stores carry organic foods and the number continues to rise. you can vote with your dollars every time you buy food if you want to see more on the shelves. compared to conventional farms, organic farms are just as productive, the soil is healthier and energy is used more efficiently. the next time you see two seemingly different broccoli crowns in your local grocery store’s produce section remember you’re not just paying fifty more cents for organic foods, you’re paying for fifty more years for the planet.

references:

• nestle, marion. what to eat. north point press. 2006
• willett, walter. eat, drink, and be healthy. free press. 2001

top photo courtesy of ncalternativecropsandorganics.com

that number is the amount of corn the united states is on track to produce this year in tons.  so that means for every man, woman and child in the united states, they can have 2600 pounds of corn to themselves this year.  it’s used for an incredible amount of things in this country: food for people, livestock, fuel for cars, hundreds of plant-based products, etc.

the only thing more incredible than the sheer number is the percentage of that seed which is genetically modified.  while the europe union has effectively banned gmo seed and crops, the united states has wholly embraced it.  88 percent of our crops are now genetically modified, with corn taking the lead as our principle crop.  this is up from less than 10 percent only 20 years ago.  is it a coincidence that we’ve seen an increase in food production by 120 percent in that same time frame?

now yes, there are a lot of controversies around gmo crops and seed these days.  everything from regulation to pricing concerns and health issues has kept people hesitant to embrace these engineered foods.  but with the global population skyrocketing, the increased yields of these seeds might be hard to ignore. 

is it fair to debate our concerns about gmos while people in the developing world need food desperately? is this a health discussion worth having regardless of the immediate crisis? weigh in on the debate in the comments.

gabe salkin and mel mcintire are seniors at the george washington university majoring in journalism.