The Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture: Myth Six

By The Editors, Fatal Harvest. Posted September 26, 2002.

Editor's Note: "The Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture" is excerpted from Fatal Harvest, a new book that chronicles the disasters of industrial farming.

Myth six: Industrial agriculture benefits the environment and wildlife

The truth:
Industrial agriculture is the largest single threat to the earth's biodiversity. Fence-row-to-fence-row plowing, planting, and harvesting techniques decimate wildlife habitats, while massive chemical use poisons the soil and water, and kills off countless plant and animal communities.

Industrial agriculture's mythmakers have been so successful in their efforts to shape opinion that they must believe we'll swallow just about anything. They now assure us that intensive farming methods that rely on chemicals and biotechnology somehow protect the environment. This myth, as illogical as it may sound to an informed reader, is increasingly widespread in America today and is increasingly accepted as valid. What's worse, agribusiness is saturating the media with misleading reports of the purported ecological risks of organic and other environmentally sustainable agricultural practices.

A typical claim of the industrial apologists is that the industrial style of agriculture has prevented some 15 million square miles of wildlands from being plowed under for "low-yield" food production. They continuously assert that the biggest challenge of the 21st century is to increase food yields through modern advances in agricultural science, which include the genetic engineering of commercial food crops. They also claim that if the world does not fully embrace industrial agriculture, hundreds of thousands of wildlife species will be lost to low-yield crops and ranging livestock.

There is a plethora of evidence that busts this myth. At the outset, the idea that sustainable agriculture is low-yield and would result in plowing under millions of square miles of wildlands is simply wrong. Relatively smaller farm sizes are much more productive per unit acre -- in fact 2 to 10 times more productive -- than larger ones, according to numerous government studies. In fact, the smallest farms, those of 27 acres or less, are more than ten times as productive (in terms of dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000 acres or more), and extremely small farms (4 acres or less) can be over a hundred times as productive.

Additionally, in contrast to industrial agriculture, sustainable or alternative agriculture minimizes the environmental impacts of farming on plants and animals, as well as the air, water, and soil, often without added economic costs. The simple use of composted organic manures is a cost-effective alternative to chemical fertilizers, and increases soil microbiology and fertility, decreases erosion, and over the long term helps preserve wildlife habitats. Organic and diversified farming practices increase the prevalence of birds and mammals on farmlands and ensure biological diversity for the planet. In sum, in terms of preserving and augmenting soil productivity and the biodiversity of the planet, small-scale sustainable agriculture is far more beneficial and efficient than its industrial counterpart.

Moreover, instead of being a boon to the environment as the myth proclaims, industrial agriculture is currently the largest single threat to the earth's biodiversity. There are two primary reasons for this: the devastation of wild species caused by chemical use, and the destruction of wildlife habitat from industrial agriculture's inefficient fence-row-to-fence-row plowing, planting, and harvesting techniques.

Chemicals and the environment

Pesticide use -- endemic to industrial agriculture -- has been clearly identified as a principal driving force behind the drastic reduction of biodiversity on America's farmlands. According to Tracy Hewitt and Katherine Smith of the Henry Wallace Institute, there are no fewer than 50 scientific studies that have documented adverse environmental effects of pesticide use on bird, mammal, and amphibian populations across the United States and Canada. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, for example, found that at least 6 percent of the breeding population of bald eagles along the James River were killed annually by insecticide poisonings. Professor David Pimentel estimates that 672 million birds are affected by pesticide use on farmlands and 10 percent of these -- 67 million -- die each year. In Texas, where some 15 million acres of croplands are treated with pesticides, tens of thousands of migratory waterfowl come in direct contact with the treated grains, risking sickness and ultimately death. Between 1977 and 1984, half of all the fish kills off the coast of South Carolina were attributed to pesticide contamination. These are only a few of the many tragic examples of wildlife destruction in the United States alone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »