Argument Analysis of Andre Leu’s “Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World” (Core #2)

Argument Analysis of Andre Leu’s “Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World” (Core #2)


In June 2003, President George Bush stated at a biotechnology conference, “We should encourage the spread of safe, effective biotechnology to win the fight against global hunger.” It was statements like these that inspired Andre Leu to argue that organic agriculture can indeed feed the world, and it can do it better. Andre Leu is the president of the Organic Producers Association of Queensland and vice chair of the Organic Federation of Australia. As a credible source his argument has some merit, yet one must analyze the counterparts to his argument. Leu makes three claims to support his argument that organic agriculture can feed the world: world hunger is not caused by low yields, organic agriculture can produce high yields, and organic agriculture can produce high yields in the communities that need it most.
The first claim that Leu makes is that justification for the use of chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture is not viable because world hunger would not be caused by low yields. He supports this argument by going on to note that there really haven’t been to many famines since 1968 except for those in African countries. He goes on to say that the starvation of these African countries were caused by corrupt governments, political turmoil, civil wars, and periodic droughts. I believe Leu could have expanded on the reasons for these famines. Perhaps going into a bit more detail about the reason of its occurrence, rather than a mere list. Leu also says that there has often been an unfair distribution of food, which has caused starvation. He states that South American rainforests have been cleared for pasture. Once the soil of these lands deplete, they have been abandoned and new forests have been cleared for pasture. Very little of this cleared land is used to feed the poor, and most production is exported to rich economies. He goes on to say that some countries are in the process of converting a large percentage of arable, farmable land from the use of food production to making biofuels such as ethanol. This means that food is not being produced on some of the most farmable land. Leu wants to point out that if there is so much ground to produce crops on, then how could they argue that the world will suffer from starvation? How could we need chemicals and GMOs to prevent world hunger where there is much more opportunity for more agriculture. Leu perhaps should have pointed out which countries are undergoing these industrial developments, and specifically, how much land is being robbed. He does however, accomplish his goal of showing us that there are more opportunity for more agricultural yields.
The next central argument that Leu makes is that organic agriculture can produce high yields. He supports this claim with a lot of evidence. In the journal, “New Scientist” of February, 2001, author states that low technological sustainable agriculture is increasing crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 percent. He states that in the article that this was achieved by replacing synthetic methods of pesticide with natural pest controlling methods. Also, Professor Jules Pretty, Director for the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex found evidence that twenty countries had more than two million families farming sustainably on more than four to five million hectares. Pretty showed that this has all happened on the last five to ten years and many times in remote, poor areas thought incapable of food surplus. The author could have expanded on this evidence. What countries are the food surpluses happening, by how much, and by what methods? There are several other facts that Leu presents as evidence: “223,000 farmers in southern Brazil using green manures and cover crops of legumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of maize and wheat to four to five tons per hectare”; “45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras used regenerative technologies to triple maize yields to two tons per hectare and diversify their upland farms, which has led to local economic growth that has in turn encouraged remigration back from the cities”; “200,000 farmers across Kenya as part of sustainable agriculture programs have more than doubled their maize yields to about 2.5 to 3.3 tons per hectare and substantially improved vegetable production through the dry seasons”; “100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico have adopted fully organic production methods and increased yields by half”; and, “A million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam have shifted to sustainable agriculture, where group-based farmer field schools have enabled farmers to learn alternatives to pesticides and increase their yields by about 10 percent.” Leu proved his point well with all the substantial evidence that was provided, yet fell short in citing where this evidence came from.
The last central argument that was made was that not only can organic culture produce high yields, but it can also produce high yields in the communities that need it the most. In January of 2003, "World Vision News” linked farmers from the impoverished Makuyu community in Kenya with the Kenya institute of organic farming (KIOF). The KIOF taught workshops taught principles of organic farming to the Makuyu. Following these workshops, maize yields increased by four to nine times, which was sixty percent higher than those that used chemicals. Now the Makuyu have a surplus of food, where previously there was not enough food to eat. The best part is that the surplus provided a profit that in turn was put back into the community. The Makuyu then purchased dairy goats, rabbits, hives and poultry, and planted 20,000 trees, including 2,000 mangos. This was a wonderful example provided by the author. Leu also cites evidence from “The Real Green Revolution,” by Nicolas Parrott of Cardiff University in the United Kingdom. Parrott shows case studies that confirm the success of organic farming techniques in the developing world: “In Madhya Pradesh, India, average cotton yields on farms participating in the Maikaal Bio-Cotton Project are twenty percent higher than on neighboring conventional farms”; “In Madagascar, SRI (System of Rice Intensification) has increased yields from the usual two to three tons per hectare to yields of six, eight, or ten tons per hectare”; “In Tigray, Ethiopia, a move away from intensive agrochemical usage in favor of composting has produced an increase in yields and in the range of crops it is possible to grow”; and, “In the highlands of Bolivia, the use of bone meal and phosphate rock and intercropping with nitrogen-fixing lupin species have significantly contributed to increases in potato yields.” Once again Leu provides substantial evidence, and citation was acceptable here. I just wonder where to find this journal article. All of these occurances have provided a positive change in wealth for the surrounding communities. The input costs are lower because they did not need to buy chemicals for the agriculture, and this allows greater profit. Also, the substitution of more labor provides employment for the surrounding communities. In turn, these employed can pay for food and other needs. Leu’s goal here was to prove that poor communities can gain wealth and surplus food supply from organic farming, and with substantial evidence this goal was attained.
Leu made many viable claims to support his argument that organic agriculture can feed the world. He wanted to prove that world hunger would not be caused by low yields of agriculture, that organic agriculture can indeed produce high yields, and that high yields of organic agriculture would benefit poor economies. He achieved this goal by providing a myriad of evidence, yet fell short by providing the readers a direction on where to find this evidence in most cases. In analyzing this argument, I find the significance of the overall issue. Using chemicals on agriculture would provide great ease to farming, and less paid labor. Yet, the paid labor would benefit society as a whole. This issue is a matter of society and environment versus the corporate company. By using chemicals, the farmer can produce high yields quite quickly, thus quick profit. Yet, if agriculture is produced organically, this would benefit society and the environment first, and the farmer later. Using chemicals could perhaps be a toxic shortcut for the farmer and there have been a lot of excuses made to make it justifiable. Yet if one were to analyze evidence of the opposing argument, there claims that our race will soon starve and that pesticides and GMOs are the answer may prove to be true.


Leu, Andrew. "Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World." Acres U.S.A. 34.1(2004). Google. 21 Oct. 2008. . Keywords: pesticides and agriculture and organic.