The biggest source of water pollution is agriculture; it is predicted about 70% of water pollution is because of pesticide and fertilizer. That old agriculture method is long believed as the only choice we have if we want to reduce the world hunger and also to make the basic foods affordable to people around the globe.

So, if we want to reduce the water pollution problem, is it worth the higher priced food and the increased world hunger? My answer is YES.

Reducing water pollution is worth the cost of higher priced food and “increased world hunger.” My argumentation is mainly based on the fact that consumers are willing to pay higher price for organics farming products and also the fact that the extensive use of pesticide and fertilizer does not decrease the world hunger. It is true that the use of pesticide and fertilizer increases the total food output of the world; however, according to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) the increasing total food output does not mean there is a “decreased world hunger.” There is at least 800 million people now is in hunger condition. [1]

The state of world hunger is not because of there is not enough food (i.e. grains) to the world population, but mainly because of inequality in distribution. Some affluent countries have too much food; many other poor countries do not have access to those foods. Malnourishment and hunger problem occurs more because of food distribution problem than food availability. The basic problem is poverty. [2] Figure 1 shows world regions that recently still have people in hunger conditions.

In other words, it is not true that we would increase the world hunger if we reduce the use of pesticide and fertilizer. As a matter of fact, the use of those chemicals is only creating over-consumption behavior in developed countries (such as in the United States) while some other region still need a lot of foods.

Based on those facts, we can conclude that the world hunger today could not be solved simply by produce more food (i.e. by using more pesticide and fertilizer). The better solution is improving the distribution while providing opportunity for world’s agriculture industry to implement more environmental friendly agriculture industries, such as organic farming.

Figure 1:

Source: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2002 Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2002 [3]

Organic farming methods may result lower yields, but at the same time it requires less cost compare to conventional agriculture due to the saving of chemical cost; therefore, the total income to the farmers would about the same. Furthermore, consumers have demonstrated the willingness to pay a premium price for organically foods; for example, in California the sales of organics grew from $1 million in 1979 to $ 50 million in 1987. [4] Of course there is disadvantage of this organic farming; according to a national study on U.S agriculture, the organic farming, even though increase national net farm income, would increase consumer food costs and decrease agriculture exports. [5] Since consumers would bear the cost, it could be expected there will be a decreasing in food consumptions in developed countries from over consumptions to more rate and at the same time would reduce the water pollution.

Based on the above approach, all OECD countries have been decreasing the use of pesticide and mineral fertilizer. In conclusion, reducing water pollution is worth the cost of higher food.