Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
might one day be economically feasible. If not, these farm-
ers may have to switch to organic fertilizers to restore their
field's productivity. Chances are, though, that some company
will develop a solution for these farmers, something produced
in large factories using advanced chemistry and owned by a
large corporation.
For now, farmers keep harvesting more from their fields
while relying almost exclusively on chemical fertilizer, and
many are optimistic that they can continue to do so for a long
time. Some do not share this optimism, probably fearing that
the soil will become infertile very quickly, before they have
time to adjust. This is why they champion the organic food
movement, which asks us to think about soil supplements
now, because a healthy soil must be nurtured constantly—not
reacted to by necessity. Organic advocates may not believe
that the private sector will quickly and cheaply provide soil
supplements when they are needed. If chemical fertilizers are
provided largely by corporations (they are) and one distrusts
corporations, then skeptics may have little confidence in the
private sector to save them in the future.
Do Chemical Fertilizers Reduce the Nutrient Content of Food?
Consumers hear conflicting reports about foods' nutrient
content. Food writer Michael Pollan has claimed that fresh
produce is 40 percent less nutritious today than in 1950, and
this was written in a context that suggested modern technolo-
gies like chemical fertilizer are the problem. Writers for the
Scientific American
have made similar statements. The main
culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion of
nutrients, they say. If chemical fertilizers do not return micro-
nutrients to the soil, it seems logical that food will also possess
fewer micronutrients.
For an illustration of how a lack of micronutrients can
impact health, consider iodine. Most readers will not experi-
ence a lack of iodine because it is added to table salt. However,
