The Rural Voice, 2000-10, Page 391
productivity.
Using her home state of
Washington as an example, Tigges
said thAt if chemical nitrogen was not
used to fertilize the wheat and potato
crops, just two of dozens grown in
the state, and dairy cattle manure was
the only source, more land than,the
state encompasses would be needed
to feed the cattle. There would be no
land left for crops.
As part of her mandate with the
EAT First project (Environment -
Agriculture -Technology), she
educates people on the benefits of
high -yield agriculture.
With
the rapidly growing
population, in the next 35
years the world will have
to produce as much food as it has in
the last 12,000 years to feed
everyone, she said.
"Land use is the biggest crisis,"
she said, as she asked where more
arable land could be found. "Only
one-quarter, of the earth is land, one-
eighth is hospitable, and we don't
grow food on 3/32 of it because of
cities, rock, parks, too wet, too dry or
rainforests. Then the top soil from
just 1/32 is used for agriculture."
Tigges said there are four
alternatives to look at when
considering increased food
production. The first is to use more
land. However, she said it could only
come from habitats which have been
set aside.
The second option would be to
stop the population growth. The best
way to slow an exploding population
is to increase the standard of living
through quality of food. If children
live to adulthood, there is no social
need for multi -births in a family.
While the birth rate is below
replacement in 77 countries,
stabilizing the death rate in
developing countries would allow the
birth rate to drop eventually, she said.
The third solution would be to ignore
the problem. "We can do (food
production) better here," she said.
"Seventy-five per centyof the world
does slash and burn or will take their
last animal to feed the family."
Tigges said North America also
has most of the good land with one
acre here producing as much as
2,000 would in the tropics.
Though she noted there are always
cases of mismanagment, she said it
costs less here to produce the food
than to leave it to the Third World to
fend for themselves.
In the fourth scenario, Tigges said
the world needs to produce more
Pat Tigges
Production can be increased
food on the land now in use.
She believes production can be
increased three -fold on the 5.8
million square miles of arable land. It
would save 6.4 billion square miles
of poorer quality land through high -
yield agriculture.
Her support of technology comes
with the need for increased
production. "As the Third World
continues to gain a desire for meat,
milk, eggs and cotton jeans, we
cannot produce enough for nine
billion people (a projected stabilized
population) on today's technology."
If questioned why it is North
America's responsibility to produce
the food, Tigges said, "The best land
should be used for food as it disturbs
the least number of species. The best
land has the least bio -diversity as it
allows only a few species to
dominate."
Tigges said the keys to the green
revolution are all under attack.
"Plant breeding technology,
improved fertilizers, improved
irrigation and synthetic pesticides are
needed to feed nine billion affluent
people."
Pharmaceuticals and "farm-
aceuticals" have created miracles, she
said. During the 50 years of use, life
expectancy continues to increase.
"We can clean out water -born
contaminants, eat fruits and
vegetables all year and prevent molds
and mildews on stored foods."
Noting that activists say pesticides
are not worth the risk, Tigges said
there has been no documented case
of a death from pesticide with proper
use.
"The risks are estimated" she said,
"as there are no bodies to count.
Animals are force-fed. They think a
minute dose over a life time is the
same as one large dose. One hundred
aspirins at one time is lethal, but one
aspirin a week for 100 weeks is not."
She stated that 80 per cent of
American food does not have any
residue (from pesticides) and 10 per
cent is so minute it could be
considered organic.
According to the Environmental
Protection Agency, pesticide use has
been dropping since 1979, she said.
Insecticides are down 50 per cent.
Herbicides, which account for 80 per
cent of what is used, don't leave a
residue.
She also extended the argument to
pesticides causing cancer. No cases
have been proven, she said, and age-
adjusted cancer rates have dropped
16 per cent in 40 years (not including
lifestyle cancers).
She attributes the apparently
increasing number of cancer
deaths to longer life -
expectancy. "More people are dying
of cancer because they haven't died
of something else first."
While disputing the fact that our
waters are becoming more
contaminated, she said science k
now able to find smaller and smaller
particulates in the water. Of course
the water can become contaminated,
she said. Why do you think we have
water treatment plants? To catch the
rare occurrences. People have been
dying from contaminated water for
centuries. We forget cholera and
influenza.
Much of Tigges' philosophy could
be understood through that one
statement.°
OCTOBER 2000 35