The True Cost of Food

Our April 2014 issue covers one of the most significant trends currently taking place in the natural products industry: the shift toward and emphasis on non-genetically modified organisms (non-GMOs). According to market research firm Packaged Facts, the number of non-GMO foods and beverages introduced globally surged by roughly 25% in 2013.
 
While I’m not yet categorically opposed to genetic engineering—believing there could be potential benefit in the future if implemented ethically and under well-defined objectives and standards based on scientific consensus—in my mind there’s no question that consumers have the right to know what’s in the products they buy.
 
I’ve heard the argument made that genetic engineering can increase crop yield in harsh environmental conditions resulting from global climate change. Sounds like a legitimate purpose. However, before we set out to modify nature in attempt to survive its wrath, what if there was a way to better live in harmony with our environment and feed a growing population in the process?
 
After hearing Andy Sharpless, CEO of the conservation group Oceana, speak about fishery management at the GOED Exchange conference in February, I read his book The Perfect Protein: The Fish Lover’s Guide to Saving the Oceans and Feeding the World. Mr. Sharpless makes pragmatic economic and humanitarian arguments for being better stewards of the world’s fisheries and shifting away from industrialized agriculture that relies on meat production, at significant cost to the environment and public health.
 
With a population expected to reach 9 billion, “The 21st century will be the era when we push our planet’s ability to absorb human impacts to the limit. Honestly, even with nearly a billion people hungry today, we’ve done a remarkable job simply producing enough food to keep up with a global population that has doubled since the 1960s. The Green Revolution allowed us to roughly keep pace with global demand for food. Our major failing has not been in producing food. It’s been producing it at too great a cost to both the environment and the world’s poor.”
 
Even in the U.S., food cost is a real issue. According to the 2013 Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index survey, 18.9% of U.S. adults said they struggled to afford food they or their families needed at least once in the past 12 months, likely due to a rise in food prices across the country, particularly meat prices, while national incomes have largely flat-lined since the recession. Meanwhile, Congress passed an update to the Farm Bill in early 2014 that cuts approximately $8 billion from national food assistance programs over the next decade. 
 
A study published in January in the journal Science linked population declines of large carnivores around the world to our growing demand for meat. The Center for Biological Diversity recently launched its Earth-Friendly Diet campaign, noting meat production is one of the main drivers of environmental degradation globally, and the crisis is rapidly growing worse. “Production of beef, poultry, pork and other meats tripled between 1980 and 2010 and will likely double again by 2020. This ever-increasing meat consumption in a world of more than 7 billion people is already taking a staggering toll on wildlife, habitat, water resources, air quality and the climate. And Americans eat more meat per capita than almost anyone else. By reducing our meat consumption, we can take extinction off our plates and improve our own health along with the health of the planet.”
 
Additionally, a new Oceana report released in March, “Wasted Catch: Unsolved Bycatch Problems in U.S. Fisheries,” noted that global bycatch may amount to 40% of the world’s catch, totaling 63 billion pounds per year. Bycatch in the U.S. could amount to 2 billion pounds every year, equivalent to the entire annual catch of many other fishing nations around the world.
 
The argument that genetic engineering is the solution to the world’s food crisis is a red herring. The real issue is how we’re currently producing food: unsustainably, at odds with the environment and the needs of society.