I got a very interesting question the other day: "If they don't use all the pesticides and fertilizers, why are organic foods  so much more expensive than the others?"

The simple answer: supply and demand. The fact is that there is simply a lot less certified organic food produced than the stuff that is grown in the more standard ways.

Note the word "certified." In order to earn the "certified organic" label, a farmer has to go through a lot of paperwork, keep a whole lot of records, and submit to a lot of inspections. It's almost more trouble than its worth, especially when you consider that producing certified organic food is extremely labor intensive.

Now, there is an increasing debate over which is better: eating organic foods, or eating foods grown locally and seasonally with conventional methods?

If you are concerned about the overall health of the planet – not to mention national security – this is a no-brainer. Chances are that the organic grapes you served at your party last night in your home in Montana came all the way from Mexico. Now, supporting Mexico's growing organic food industry (currently located primarily on the Baja Peninsula) is a fine thing, but think about how much oil was used to transport those grapes over 2,000 miles – oil that comes mostly from countries that are not good friends of the U.S.A.

On the other hand, there's that niggling question about all those pesticides that are sprayed on conventionally-grown produce, which is more like to happen when you're buying local. One of the biggest concerns is carcinogenicity – but the fact is that when it comes to pesticides, the jury is still out. There is a lot we don't know in this area. If we did – if it could be proved conclusively and scientifically that the common pesticides used on conventionally-grown produce in fact did cause cancer, I suspect everyone would be charging toward the organic section.

The fact is however that this has not been proven. Meanwhile, if we weren't doing something about the pest problem, relatively little of what we are growing would make it to market (remember all those stories in the Old Testament about pestilence and famines?)

I'm not saying that pesticides are necessarily good for you (and you should be washing your produce before eating in any event), but neither is starving to death.

Here is something else to think about: back in Biblical times, when virtually all food was "organic" (because farmers in those days didn't have pesticides and chemical fertilizers), the average human lifespan was about 45 years. King David, who reportedly died at 70, was ancient by the standards of those days.

On the other hand, it's not unusual for people in America to live well into their 80s and 90s these days. Heck, that's a big improvement just over a century ago. And I'm willing to bet that today's octogenarians didn't confine themselves to eating organic. (On the other hand, Ewell Gibbons, a leading proponent of "natural" foods back in the 1970s, dropped dead at age sixty.)

The fact is, human longevity is a complex issue – and probably has less to do with whether or not you eat organic than you think.

Remember some of those stories in the Old Testament, in which "plagues of locusts" descended on farmer's fields, devouring the crops and causing famine in the land?

Apparently, something similar happened in what is now the Salt Lake Valley in Utah back around 1848. Just as the new settlers were getting their crops in, huge swarms of crickets arrived and started eating it all up. Eventually, a swarm of seagulls swooped down and made short work of those crickets, saving the crops (and earning a place as Utah's official State Bird).

It didn't occur to those hardy pioneers to simply make a meal of their locusts. But in fact, this is exactly what happens in many cultures. I've been talking a lot here about how we are going to feed a rapidly-growing population in a time when more and more arable land is being lost. Sure, technology and better use of resources can help alleviate the problem – and as women become more educated and start asserting more control over their bodies, we may see a slowdown in population growth.

Nonetheless, given the uncertainty of the world’s food supply, it's a good idea to keep all options on the table (literally). And that includes eating bugs.

According to a Dutch entomologist, Dr. Arnold van Huis, there are some 1,400 insect species on the planet that actually make fine eating. He points out that in many parts of the developing world, "...people don’t eat caterpillars, beetle larvae, grasshoppers and termites because they don’t have a choice but because they taste good.” He adds that "insects are high in protein and have essential fatty acids and important vitamins."

The fact is that even though it is known to be an inefficient way to produce food, almost 7 out of every ten acres on the planet is currently used to raise meat – and folks are still chowing down on hamburger and steak like there was no mañana. At current population trends, this is not sustainable. In addition, the methane produced by livestock is a major cause of global climate change ("warming" is a bit of a misnomer as folks in the eastern U.S. are discovering this winter).

Dr. Van Huis, who is a great promoter of insect-based cuisine, points out that "insects have a much lower environmental burden, while their nutritional value measures up to chicken or beef."

How does this impact farmers? Well, farmers produce food – and if we start taking advantage of insect efficiency to produce cheaper proteins and fats, the odds are good that it’ll be farmers in the vanguard! The irony is that for the all of the thousands of years of farming history, insects have been farmers’ Enemy Number One – and now they may become another cash crop. Insecticulture has a proud history in human society (think silkworms and caterpillars and bumblebees) but their use for direct food production will be something new, and this may prove a lucrative – if weird – line of business for ambitious young farmers.

Urban sprawl...paving over farmland...turning once-fertile fields into cheap, poorly-constructed housing developments with evocative names like "The Olde Country Farm," or "Meadowlands Retreat," or something meaningless like that.

Aside from the fact that it makes anyone who works the land want to cry (or bust some developer's head), it begs the question of just how these people plan to eat. Someone, somewhere has got to raise that food from the ground and/or run that livestock.

"Oh," those proud homeowners say, "we just go to the Mega-Lo Mart down the street."

Right...

The whole scenario – combined with the issue we covered over the last couple of weeks on how human population is threatening to outstrip food supply – points up an issue that people will, sooner or later have to face: namely, where their food is coming from. Too many things in that grocery store travel over 1,000 miles from where they were produced. Not only does this require the use of petroleum (most of which is imported from nations whose people  are no fans of the U.S.A.), but it also means that if the weather turns ugly, or a landslide or other disaster takes out major transportation routes, there are going to be serious shortages.

Generally, it is a really bad idea to be so dependent on distant food sources.

In some places, people are starting to understand this and taking action by buying more locally-produced foods (from within a 200-mile radius) and adapting their diets throughout the year to what's available seasonally. Here's a good example: most lettuces and leafy salad greens are not readily available in the winter unless imported from warmer areas – but cabbages do quite well in the cold. What's wrong with coleslaw instead of a Waldorf or Caesar Salad when there's snow on the ground? And do you really need avocado’s from Mexico when its already summertime in your hemisphere?

Looking at country of origin (COOL) labes is a good start, but more could be done. Community gardens and home "victory gardens" are also part of the solution. The city of Portland, Oregon has already taken a vast inventory of arable land within its city limits for a time when they may have to depend on local resources.

In Detroit, Michigan, some folks are thinking about putting the idea of "community gardens" on steroids.

Without going into the economic policies of the last thirty years that have literally destroyed Motown, I'm happy to report that one of the last millionaires in that city is thinking of revitalizing it by re-inventing it – as a huge urban farm.

Urban farming is not a new idea, but it has not yet been proposed on such a massive scale. If John Hantz, who is willing to put $30 million of his own money where his mouth is, can convince the Detroit City Council to give his proposal a try, Detroit may yet be reborn into a better, more prosperous city than it ever was before – while feeding hundreds of thousands and serving as a model for the world.

More on this as it develops.

Last week I looked at the impending train wreck that will almost certainly occur if the human population continues to outstrip the ability of the planet to feed its members. Most population growth is happening in places like India, the Middle East, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa – places where arable land and water resources are not overly-abundant.

To make matters worse, the governments of these largely developing nations, in well-meaning but misguided attempts to "catch up" with the industrialized world, are paving over what farmland there is in the name of "development."

What, realistically, can be done?

It's Not Necessarily Shortages

Much of the problem has less to do with supply than it does with distribution. Used effectively, the existing cropland we have is more than enough to feed everyone on Earth. But while we may very well be able to increase production with fewer inputs than ever, most of this progress is not happening in those regions of the world most in need – and such progress may not be possible in those areas for reasons of climate or geography, or both.

Part of the problem lies with protectionist trade barriers as well as regulations that put some real constraints on farmers, particularly in Western Europe. It goes without saying that the EU, which is experiencing a population decline and can easily produce surpluses, is a lot closer to Africa than North America. Of course, the other problem is that many of these African countries (run by corrupt, self-serving dictatorships) would have difficulty paying for this surplus food.

Doing More With Less

Despite increased yields with fewer inputs over the past few decades, there are many places in the world where agriculture is still practiced in highly inefficient ways. A couple of weeks ago, I talked about Haiti and the devastating effect that centuries of "slash-and-burn" agriculture has had on that country.

Like it or not, most increased agricultural yields have occurred in industrialized countries using industrial methods. Perhaps, instead of sending armed troops to Haiti, we should be sending agronomists armed with plows, new kinds of fertilizers and more efficient scientific farming methods.

Water Equals What?

Finally, there is the ugly specter of water issues. Regions of the world that are the poorest are also those in which clean water is at a premium – or has been given over to industrial needs rather than agrarian ones. Farmers must consider what crops provide the greatest amount of caloric content for the least amount of water. For example, at current water costs (in US dollars), a pound of wheat can be grown for under ten cents, while protein-rich lentils and fava beans can be raised for a bit more, around 12.5 cents a pound. However, olives can run as much as .35 cents a pound, and when we start getting into beef, the cost goes up to a whopping $1.15 per pound or so.

Technology has been providing solutions to agricultural problems for many years, and there is no reason to think that kind of progress will stop. Yet, we must understand that a finite planet cannot support an infinite number of people. In the worst-case scenario, nature may take care of the problem with a cataclysm that we cannot imagine.

In the meantime, there will be difficult choices to be made.