Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present an extensive literature review exploring the relationships between food insecurity and rapid biodiversity loss, and the competing methods proposed to address each of these serious problems. Given a large and growing human population, the persistence of widespread malnutrition, and the direct and significant threats the expanding agricultural system poses to biodiversity, the goals of providing universal food security and protecting biodiversity seem incompatible. Examining the literature shows that the current agricultural system already provides sufficient food on a worldwide basis, but in doing so methodically undermines the capacity of agroecosystems to preserve biodiversity. However, the available evidence emphasizes the interdependence of biodiversity and agriculture, and the important role each plays in the maintenance of the other. Thus, our review supports the claim that the solutions to the problems of widespread food insecurity and biodiversity loss need not be mutually exclusive, and that it may be possible to address both using appropriate alternative agricultural practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The definition of food security used here and in the rest of this work is: physical and economic access by all people in a society at all times to enough culturally and nutritionally appropriate food for a healthy and active lifestyle (FAO 1996). Under this definition, obesity and hunger are equally considered to be problems of food security. Both are related in great part to the structures of government subsidies, global trade, narrowing of the food base, inequality, poverty, and lack of food sovereignty. And it may be possible to address both to a great extent by changing the focus of agricultural production to a food system focused on substantive equality, local production, biodiversity, and dietary diversity (Frison et al. 2006; Friel et al. 2007). Insofar as these issues converge, obesity will be (indirectly) addressed in the present work; but the primary focus will be on the hunger and nutritional insufficiency aspects of food security.

  2. One newer component increasingly included in this list is a specific call for locally-focused food systems, such as the “nearness principle” of the Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming (2000). Locally-based food systems may cut down on resource consumption and pollution produced by the long-distance transportation of foodstuffs and agricultural inputs, and also may increase transparency and reduce alienation between producer and consumer by facilitating direct contact between these groups (Heller and Keoleian 2000; Pretty et al. 2005). (See also Note 25.).

  3. Alternative systems may also have lower run-off of nutrients than conventional systems, meaning in turn higher resource use efficiency (see Note 23). This use efficiency further means that less energy is used to recover, produce, transport, and apply nutrients.

  4. The stated percentage (0.7%) is potentially an underestimate. Willer and Yussefi specifically note that their data only cover 63% of all countries. Additionally, home and urban gardens, subsistence agriculture and other parts of the “informal economy,” as well as uncertified de facto organic systems constitute an unknown quantity of additional land under alternative agriculture. Such systems are often nearly invisible or overlooked in large surveys, including the country-wide surveys of organizations like the FAO (pers. obs.; Young 1999; Pretty and Hine 2001; Greene and Kremen 2003; Pretty et al. 2003; Willer and Yussefi 2007). The recent negative economic climate has highlighted the potential and growing importance of informal and small-scale efforts, such as organic urban and community gardens, to significantly contribute to local food security, equity, and sustainability (Smit and Nasr 1992; National Gardening Association 2009). However, the significance and size of these efforts are poorly studied, and have been called into question by some researchers (Ellis and Sumberg 1998).

  5. Briefly summarized, the precautionary principle indicates that when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that new procedures and technologies may pose the risk of serious, irreversible, or widespread harm to public or environmental health or sustainability, they should be tightly regulated or wholly prohibited, regardless of a lack of full scientific certainty of the likelihood, magnitude, or causation of such harm, until it can be affirmatively shown that the new technology poses little or no significant risk.

  6. Increasing demand for biofuels is predicted to also contribute significantly to continued deforestation and biodiversity loss. In addition to direct negative effects on biodiversity, the rise of biofuels may form positive feedbacks with global climate change, forest dieback, and continued agricultural expansion, all of which in turn can contribute to further deforestation and biodiversity loss (Sawyer 2008; Searchinger and Houghton 2008).

  7. It is important to note that the most impressive advances in intensified conventional agriculture have been in increasing yield per unit labor (by 120 times, or about 45 times if one counts indirect labor costs) by replacing it with less energy-efficient subsidies (e.g., mechanization, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers). In contrast, alternative agricultural methods usually use increased labor inputs to increase yield per unit area (Pimentel and Dazhong 1990).

  8. Of course, sufficient global or even regional yields are not enough to guarantee food security in its full sense, as outlined in Note 1, because having enough food in an area does not guarantee equity of access or distribution such that adequate food is available to everyone in a society. Overwhelmingly, widespread hunger has been linked to poverty, political or structural problems, and other exigencies, and seems to only rarely occur due to an actual acute lack of food availability (Sen 1984; Patnaik 1991). This necessarily means that sufficient yields from any production method will not and often cannot provide food security in and of themselves, though sufficient yield is by definition a prerequisite. This is discussed briefly in the Conclusions, but as has been noted throughout, the larger context of food systems and food institutions is important but beyond the scope of the present work.

  9. This is further emphasized by the fact that the numbers do not take into account waste in the food system. Food waste from retailers, consumers, and food service in the US may make up as much as 27% of the total food supply. On-farm losses—including losses due to increasing mechanization—mean that the total proportion of waste is higher still. It is unknown how much of these losses are recoverable, but even low levels of recovery in the US would potentially feed tens of thousands of people a year (Kantor et al. 1997). If food waste in other countries is on the same order of magnitude, waste recovery efforts could potentially feed millions of people.

  10. Dahlberg (1993) points out that genetic and biological diversity undergirds all of the functional resiliency and regeneration of living systems, upon which the subset of human systems are dependent for survival. In this way, biodiversity has primacy over simple resources (renewable and non-renewable). This is further reinforced by the non-substitutability of many biological systems and resources; that is, contra classic economic theory, many natural resources cannot be substituted by increased use of an alternative but rather are unique and irreplaceable. Dahlberg likens this to the loss of one or two letters of the alphabet and the words that contain them, and the difficulties in language that would result. Such non-substitutability applies to many crucial elements of production agriculture, especially biodiversity, and is a basic principle of the field of ecological economics; see e.g., Prugh et al. (2000) and Daly (1996) in addition to Dahlberg.

  11. Although agriculture is our focus, it is worth noting that a similar discussion is taking place around forestry/agroforestry and commercial forestry (see also Schroth et al. 2004; Brockerhoff et al. 2008). .

  12. Poverty, often seen as a significant factor in promoting deforestation and environmental degradation, may play much less of a role in these phenomena than was once thought, especially in comparison to the effects of non-poor landowners (Ravnborg 2003; Gray and Moseley 2005; Sloan 2007).

  13. Citing Rosset, Vandermeer and Dietsch (2003) concluded that land reform (breaking up the inequitable concentrations of land possession present in most of the world) and redistributing the land among small producers would be the most sensible short-term solution. This, along with secure land tenure, has significant potential to aid food production, in addition to its roles in democratization and larger political reform (IAASTD 2009). Generally speaking, land reform is of a piece with food sovereignty and other broader food system issues that will need to be dealt with in order to achieve sustainability, food security, and conservation (see also Notes 15 and 25, and Conclusions).

  14. If this makes the popularity of conventional farms perplexing, bear in mind that a primary advantage of conventional techniques is that they are much less labor intensive: a single agriculturalist can work far more land using conventional methods. Conventional methods’ use of synthetic inputs also externalizes a number of societal and environmental costs, meaning that society subsidizes lower apparent production costs through decreased health, biodiversity and environmental quality. Direct monetary subsidies can also dramatically favor large farms over small ones (USDA 2009).

  15. A full analysis of the dynamics of farm size is not possible in the present work. However, it is important to note the “Goldschmidt Hypothesis”: that community welfare will be significantly higher in regions where agriculture is organized around smaller-scale farms than in regions dominated by a small number of large farms (Goldschmidt 1978). In the 60 or so years since his original study, a number of restudies by sociologists have “offered at least tentative support for his conclusions” (Lyson et al. 2001); and few direct refutations.

  16. The number of ecological niches is, roughly speaking, the number of resource and habitat “openings” that organisms may occupy and exploit.

  17. Although this may describe both conventional and alternative agriculture, alternative agriculture tends to more frequently emphasize rotations, increased fallows, and cover cropping rather than bare fallows.

  18. “Functional groups” are groups of organisms that perform similar or the same ecological roles, such as respiration or nitrogen fixation.

  19. Although a generalized narrative is attempted here, it is vital to note that there are considerably variable results in research on soil responses to cultivation. Hooper et al. (2000) provides some indications of the complexities and disagreements within the literature; Neher (1999) provides a more specific review of soil community reactions to agriculture; a more recent but less specific overview is provided in Kibblewhite et al. (2008).

  20. Such loss of diversity may also compound future problems. A number of domesticated biological resources and genetic material are very likely not sustainable independent of the conservation of a stock of wild resources. Protection of on-farm cultivar diversity and wild relatives (“in situ conservation”), as well as a recognition of the importance of ethnographic and cultural knowledge in the use and propagation of biodiversity, will be needed along with off-site (ex situ) preservation in order to respond to the local needs of marginal farmers and future social or environmental changes (Altieri et al. 1987; Weissinger 1990; Dahlberg 1993; Jarvis and Hodgkin 1999; Almekinders and Elings 2001).

  21. In a small number of cases, monocultural plots have maintained comparable levels of associated biodiversity in certain arthropod taxa (Butts et al. 2003; Melnychuk et al. 2003).

  22. Organic monocultures, of course, present many of the same problems as conventional plots. The notable exceptions to this are a) lower run-off of agricultural nutrients (see Note 23), b) avoidance of synthetic pesticides’ detrimental effects on health and biodiversity, and c) lower fossil energy use and costs. The latter of these benefits may also disappear if organic nutrients (i.e., from animal manure or “green manure” crops) are not sourced on-site or locally (Pimentel et al. 2005), resulting in the contradictions of so-called “industrial organic” agriculture (Pollan 2006).

  23. It is of course not necessarily true that the non-synthetic fertilizers and pesticides used in alternative agriculture are always applied appropriately and always experience lower run-off. However, recent studies have observed comparable or significantly lower levels of nutrient leaching in some alternative systems (Kramer et al. 2006; Tonitto et al. 2006).

  24. In an extensive consensus review by Hooper et al. (2005), it was concluded as “certain” that system responses to biodiversity and biodiversity loss could be idiosyncratic (depending on ecosystem and its particular species and functional groups, for example); that some systems are initially insensitive to diversity, but that “more species are needed to insure a stable supply of ecosystem goods and services” over larger areas and time periods. They had “high confidence” that certain species combinations were complementary (meaning that they could increase productivity and nutrient retention as compared to a less diverse system); and that under similar conditions, susceptibility to invasion by exotic species was generally lower with higher diversity, and that having a range of species with different responses to disturbance can help increase stability, meaning that maintaining a diversity of species with diverse characteristics helps maintain a range of management options. However, determining the relationships between biodiversity and different ecosystem properties was found to require significantly more research, greater experimental work, and incorporation with the effects of various other drivers of global change.

  25. Since the original writing of this paper, local food has gained increasing attention and popularity, especially in the US and Europe. This can be seen in a number of recent popular books, such as The 100 Mile Diet (Smith and MacKinnon 2007) and The Omnivore’s Dilemma (Pollan 2006), and in the popular press. Groups such as Slow Food and various urban gardening movements seem to be on the upswing, as is the growth of farmers’ markets (USDA 2006). And of course, questions related to local food systems continue to be examined in the academic literature (see Pretty et al. 2005). It is not, however, solely scale or localness that are important, but also the democratization and effective decentralization of responsibility and power within local geographies—issues of social justice and equity that once again link to the production and distribution of food at scales involving, but extending beyond, the local (Prugh et al. 2000; Batterbury and Fernando 2006; Breitbach 2007). These issues cannot be fully addressed here, but they do reinforce previous points regarding regional food security and food sovereignty. Additionally, the case studies to be presented from Brazil and Cuba remain considered food initiatives par excellence by many, and can be considered of a piece with larger trends towards land reform and local and just food systems.

  26. Brazil, as with other developing countries, will face significant challenges to food security, conservation and the overall economy with global climate change and the rise of biofuels (see Sawyer 2008). Cuba will also doubtlessly be affected, but anticipating the nature of the effects is made difficult by its rather unique sociopolitical situation and political economy.

  27. Although Rocha (2007) does not explicitly mention or define “agency,” she considers “the whole article to be in fact a justification of the importance of agency,” and that “we cannot achieve the first Four A’s of food security without agency.” (pers. comm.). For an example of an in-depth case study analysis using Rocha’s framework, see Chappell (2009).

  28. While “putting a price on nature” is anathema to many concerned with biodiversity, a blanket refusal to place economic value on such things risks sending the signal to markets that it has zero value. Rather like the value of a “statistical life” used in the calculation of how parties at fault should economically compensate people for deaths of their loved ones, it may sometimes be a necessary evil. However, the danger of sending the signal that nature has zero value must be weighed against the compaction and loss of information and constrained understanding of value embodied in a market approach. Only vigorous public discussion combined with further research will allow us to determine when such an economic approach is effective, wise, or ethical.

Abbreviations

ADA:

American Dietetic Association

CNPP:

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GM:

Genetically modified

IAASTD:

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development

IPM:

Integrated pest management

IPNS:

Integrated plant nutrient systems

NRC:

National Research Council

SMAB:

Secretaria Municipal de Abastecimento

UNCCD:

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNDP:

United Nations Development Programme

UNMP:

United Nations Millennium Project

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  • Alexandratos, N., J. Bruinsma, G. Bödeker, J. Schmidhuber, S. Broca, P. Shetty, and M.G. Ottaviani, eds. 2006. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 (Interim Report). Rome: Global Perspective Studies Unit, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

  • Almekinders, C.J.M., and A. Elings. 2001. Collaboration of farmers and breeders: participatory crop improvement in perspective. Euphytica 122: 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alroy, J. 2008. Dynamics of origination and extinction in the marine fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(S1): 11536–11542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. 1990. Why study traditional agriculture? In Agroecology, ed. C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer, and P.M. Rosset, 551–564. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. 2000. Multifunctional dimensions of ecologically-based agriculture in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A., and M. Liebman. 1986. Insect, weed, and plant disease management in multiple cropping systems. In Multiple cropping systems, ed. C.A. Francis, 183–218. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A., L.C. Merrick, and M.K. Anderson. 1987. Peasant agriculture and the conservation of crop and wild plant resources. Conservation Biology 1: 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, A.C., E. França, M.L. de Mendonça, E. Rezende, L.H. Ishitani, and M. d.C. J. W. Côrtes. 2008. Prinicipais causas de óbitos infantis pós-neonatais em Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil, 1996 a 2004 (Leading causes of post-neonatal infant deaths in Belo Horizonte, State of Minas Gerais, Brazil, 1996 to 2004). Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil 8(1).

  • American Dietetic Association (ADA). 2003. Position of the American Dietetic Association: addressing world hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103(8): 1046–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andow, D.A. 1991. Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annual Review of Entomology 36: 561–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A. 1999. Agricultural expansion and deforestation: modeling the impact of population, market forces and property rights. Journal of Development Economics 58(1): 185–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz. 1999. Rethinking the causes of deforestation: Lessons from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer 14(1): 73–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz (eds.). 2001. Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aranha, A.V. 2000. Segurança alimentar, gestão pública e cidadania: a experiência do município de Belo Horizonte - 1993/1999, Master’s Thesis. Belo Horizonte: Escola da Governo da Fundação João Pinheiro.

  • Armbrecht, I., and I. Perfecto. 2003. Litter-twig dwelling ant species richness and predation potential within a forest fragment and neighboring coffee plantations of contrasting habitat quality in Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 97(1–3): 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J., B. Bolin, and R. Costanza. 1995. Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268: 520–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assunção, J.J., and L.H.B. Braido. 2007. Testing household-specific explanations for the inverse productivity relationship. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(4): 980–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery, A. 2007. ‘Organic abundance’ report: fatally flawed. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(4): 321–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badgley, C., J.K. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M.J. Chappell, K.R. Avilés Vázquez, A. Samulon, and I. Perfecto. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2): 86–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford, A., R.E. Green, and J.P.W. Scharlemann. 2005. Sparing land for nature: exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed for crop production. Global Change Biology 11: 1594–1605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, C.B. 1996. On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship. Journal of Development Economics 51(2): 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batterbury, S.P.J., and J.L. Fernando. 2006. Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: an introduction. World Development 34(11): 1851–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beecher, N.A., R.J. Johnson, J.R. Brandle, R.M. Case, and L.J. Young. 2002. Agroecology of birds in organic and nonorganic farmland. Conservation Biology 16(6): 1620–1631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, J., J. Ahnström, and A.-C. Weibull. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 261–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, D. 1995. Can unobserved land quality explain the inverse productivity relationship? Journal of Development Economics 46: 51–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, S.C. 2006. Capacity building for food and nutritional security: a case study on governance in São Paulo State, Brazil, Master’s Thesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

  • Bhalla, S.S., and P. Roy. 1988. Mis-specification in farm productivity analysis: the role of land quality. Oxford Economic Papers 40: 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biederbeck, V.O., C.A. Campbell, H. Ukrainetz, D. Curtin, and O.T. Bouman. 1996. Soil microbial and biochemical properties after ten years of fertilization with urea and anhydrous ammonia. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 76(1): 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisby, F.A. 1995. Characterization of biodiversity. In Global biodiversity assessment, vol. 27, ed. F.A. Bisby. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borron, S. 2006. Building resilience for an unpredictable future: How organic agriculture can help farmers adapt to climate change. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ah617e/ah617e.pdf. Accessed 1 January 2009.

  • Brake, D.G., R. Thaler, and D.P. Evenson. 2004. Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn on mouse testicular development by dual parameter flow cytometry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52(7): 2097–2102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitbach, C. 2007. The geographies of a more just food system: building landscapes for social reproduction. Landscape Research 32(5): 533–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockerhoff, E.G., H. Jactel, J.A. Parrotta, C.P. Quine, and J. Sayer. 2008. Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiversity and Conservation 17(5): 925–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, T.M., M.I. Bakarr, T. Boucher, G.A.B. da Fonseca, C. Hilton-Taylor, J.M. Hoekstra, T. Moritz, S. Olivieri, J. Parrish, R.L. Pressey, A.S.L. Rodrigues, W. Sechrest, A. Stattersfield, W. Strahm, and S.N. Stuart. 2004. Coverage provided by the global protected-area system: Is it enough? BioScience 54(12): 1081–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruinsma, J. (ed.). 2003. World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030; An FAO perspective. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budiansky, S. 2002. How affluence could be good for the environment—Intensive farming means the United States uses less land to feed more people than ever. Nature 416(6881): 581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H. 1990. Social relations and the growth of modern agriculture. In Agroecology, ed. C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer, and P.M. Rosset, 113–145. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butts, R.A., K.D. Floate, M. David, R.E. Blackshaw, and P.A. Burnett. 2003. Influence of intercropping canola or pea with barley on assemblages of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Environmental Entomology 32(3): 535–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C.A., V.O. Biederbeck, R.P. Zentner, and G.P. Lafond. 1991. Effect of crop rotations and cultural practices on soil organic matter, microbial biomass and respiration in a thin black chernozem. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 71(3): 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C.A., V.O. Biederbeck, B.G. McConkey, D. Curtin, and R.P. Zentner. 1999. Soil quality—Effect of tillage and fallow frequency. Soil organic matter quality as influenced by tillage and fallow frequency in a silt loam in southwestern Saskatchewan. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31(1): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). 2000. Nutrition and your health: dietary guidelines for Americans, 5th ed. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chander, K., S. Goyal, M.C. Mundra, and K.K. Kapoor. 1997. Organic matter, microbial biomass and enzyme activity of soils under different crop rotations in the tropics. Biology and Fertility of Soils 24(3): 306–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, M.J. 2009. From Food Security to Farm to Formicidae: Belo Horizonte, Brazil’s Secretaria Municipal de Abastecimento and Biodiversity in the Fragmented Atlantic Rainforest, PhD Dissertation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

  • Chappell, M.J., J.H. Vandermeer, C. Badgley, and I. Perfecto. 2009. Wildlife-friendly farming vs. land sparing. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(4): 183–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornia, G.A. 1985. Farm size, yields and the agricultural production function: an analysis for 15 developing countries. World Development 13(4): 513–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Souza, G., and J. Ikerd. 1996. Small farms and sustainable development: is small more sustainable? Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(1): 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, K.A. 1993. Regenerative food systems: broadening the scope and agenda of sustainability. In Food for the future: conditions and contradicitons of sustainability, ed. P. Allen, 75–102. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, K.A. 2003. Homeland security: alternative approaches needed. Michigan Organic Connections 10(3): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G.C., P.R. Ehrlich, and G. Arturo Sanchez-Azofeifa. 2001. Countryside biogeography: use of human-dominated habitats by the avifaua of sourthern Costa Rica. Ecological Applications 11: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H.E. 1996. Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danish Research Center for Organic Farming (DARCOF). 2000. Principles of organic farming: Discussion document prepared for the DARCOF Users Committee. http://www.darcof.dk/organic/Princip.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2008.

  • de Jong, W. 1997. Developing swidden agriculture and the threat of biodiversity loss. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 62(2–3): 187–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Sherbinin, A., D. Carr, S. Cassels, and L. Jiang. 2007. Population and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 345–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis, D.L. 1975. Stability and connectance in food web models. Ecology 56(1): 238–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, V. 2006. Presentation. In The system for evaluating and monitoring social development programs and policies: the case of the Ministry of Social Development and the fight against hunger in Brazil, ed. J. Vaitsman, R.W.S. Rodrigues, and R. Paes-Sousa, 5–6. Brasilia, Brazil: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demkina, T.S., and N.D. Anan’eva. 1998. The influence of long-term fertilizer application on the respiration activity and resilience of soil microbial communities. Eurasion Soil Science 31(11): 1256–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, G.J., and M.J. Furlong. 2007. Insecticide use: contexts and ecological consequences. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 281–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Falco, S., and C. Perrings. 2003. Crop genetic diversity, productivity, and stability of agroecosystems. A theoretical and empirical investigation. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 50(2): 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321(5891): 926–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorrough, J., J. Moll, and J. Crosthwaite. 2007. Can intensification of temperate Australian livestock production systems save land for native biodiversity? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 121(3): 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doull, J., D. Gaylor, H.A. Greim, D.P. Lovell, B. Lynch, I.C. Munro, et al. 2007. Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863). Food and Chemical Toxicology 45(11): 2073–2085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drèze, J., and A. Sen. 1989. Hunger and public action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P.R., and R.M. Pringle. 2008. Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(S1): 11579–11586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P.R., A.H. Ehrlich, and G.C. Daily. 1993. Food security, population and environment. Population and Development Review 19(1): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, F., and J. Sumberg. 1998. Food production, urban areas and policy responses. World Development 26(2): 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emsley, J. 2001. Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food. Nature 410(6829): 633–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin. 2003. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300(5620): 758–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewen, S.W.B., and A. Pusztai. 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354(9187): 1353–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faeth, P., and P. Crosson. 1994. Building the case for sustainable agriculture—Policy lessons from India, Chile, and The Philippines. Environment 36(1): 6–20, 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fageria, N.K. 1992. Maximizing crop yields. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1996. The Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm. Accessed 3 January 2008.

  • FAO. 2002. The state of food insecurity in the world 2002. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2006. The state of food insecurity in the world 2006: Eradicating world hunger—taking stock ten years after the World Food Summit. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2007. FAOSTAT agriculture statistical database. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. Accessed 30 October 2007.

  • FAO. 2008. The state of food insecurity in the world 2008: high food prices and food security—threats and opportunities. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO/WHO/UNU (The Food, Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The World Health Organization, The United Nations University). 1985. Energy and protein requirements. World Health Organization Technical Report Series Report No. 724. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G. 1985. The relation between farm size and farm productivity: The role of family labor, supervision, and credit constraints. Journal of Development Economics 18: 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier, S., G.V.N. Powell, K.S. Richardson, G. Manion, J.M. Overton, T.F. Allnutt, S.E. Cameron, K. Mantle, N.D. Burgess, D.P. Faith, J.F. Lamoreux, G. Kier, R.J. Hijmans, V.A. Funk, G.A. Cassis, B.L. Fisher, P. Flemons, D. Lees, J.C. Lovett, and R.S.A.R. Van Rompaey. 2004. Mapping more of terrestrial biodiversity for global conservation assessment. BioScience 54(12): 1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipecki, M., and S. Malepszy. 2006. Unintended consequences of plant transformation: A molecular insight. Journal of Applied Genetics 47(4): 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finegan, B., and R. Nasi. 2004. The biodiversity and conservation potential of shifting cultivation landscapes. In Agroforestry, biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes, ed. G. Schroth, G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L. Vasconcelos, and A.-M.N. Izac. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J., B. Brosi, G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, R. Goldman, J. Goldstein, D.B. Lindenmayer, A.D. Manning, H.A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, J. Ranganathan, and H. Tallis. 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(7): 380–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foissner, W. 1997. Protozoa as bioindicators in agroecosystems, with emphasis on farming practices, biocides, and biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 62: 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., D.M. Truong, A.T. Rambo, N.P. Tuyen, L.T. Cuc, and S. Leisz. 2000. Shifting cultivation: a new old paradigm for managing tropical forests. BioScience 50(6): 521–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J.E., J. Gulledge, E. Engelhaupt, M.E. Burow, and J.A. McLachlan. 2007. Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(24): 10282–10287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, D.A., and S.J. Mcnaughton. 1991. Stability increases with diversity in plant-communities–Empirical evidence from the 1988 Yellowstone drought. Oikos 62(3): 360–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freese, W., and D. Schubert. 2004. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 21: 299–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fresco, L. 2003. ‘Which road do we take?’ Harnessing genetic resources and making use of life sciences, a new contract for sustainable agriculture. In EU Discussion Forum “Towards Sustainable Agriculture for Developing Countries: Options from Life Sciences and Biotechnologies”, 8, Brussels.

  • Friel, S., M. Chopra, and D. Satcher. 2007. Unequal weight: equity oriented policy responses to the global obesity epidemic. British Medical Journal 335(7632): 1241–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frison, E.A., I.F. Smith, T. Johns, J. Cherfas, and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 2006. Agricultural biodiversity, nutrition, and health: Making a difference to hunger and nutrition in the developing world. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 27(2): 167–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funes, F., M.A. Altieri, and P.M. Rosset. 2009. The Avery diet: the Hudson Institute’s misinformation campaign against Cuban agriculture. http://www.landaction.org/spip/spip.php?article422. Accessed 31 May 2009.

  • Funes, F., L. Garcia, M. Bourque, N. Perez, and P. Rosset. 2002. Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming food production in Cuba. Milford: Food First Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • García González, J.E. 2007. Cultivos genéticamente modificados: Las promesas y las buenas intenciones no bastan. Revista de Biología Tropical 52(3): 727–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, G., and B. Halweil. 2000. Overfed and underfed: The global epidemic of malnutrition. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, K.J., and R.A. Fuller. 2007. Biodiversity and extinction: losing the common and the widespread. Progress in Physical Geography 31(2): 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giller, K.E., M.H. Beare, P. Lavelle, A.-M.N. Izac, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function. Applied Soil Ecology 6: 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, W. 1978. As you sow: Three studies in the social consequences of agribusiness. New York, NY: Allenheld, Osmun.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, L.C., and W.G. Moseley. 2005. A geographical perspective on poverty-environment interactions. The Geographical Journal 171(1): 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C., and A. Kremen. 2002. U.S. organic farming: A decade of expansion [Electronic version]. Agricultural outlook: USDA, Economic Research Service.

  • Greene, C., and A. Kremen. 2003. U.S. organic farming in 2000–2001: Adoption of certified systems, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 780. Washington, DC: USDA, ERS.

  • Gurr, G.M., S.D. Wratten, and J.M. Luna. 2003. Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology 4(2): 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hairston, N.G., J.D. Allan, R.K. Colwell, D.J. Futuyama, J. Howell, M.D. Lubin, J. Mathias, and J.H. Vandermeer. 1968. The relationship between species diversity and stability: an experimental approach with protozoa and bacteria. Ecology 49(6): 1091–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. 2006. From Fome Zero to Bolsa Família: Social policies and poverty alleviation under Lula. Journal of Latin American Studies 38(4): 689–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski, I., J. Clobert, and W. Reid. 1995. Generation, maintenance and loss of biodiversity. In Global biodiversity assessment, eds. V.H. Heywood, R. Barbault and S. Sastrapradja, 232–245. Cambridge University Press.

  • Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski, I., and M. Gilpin. 1997. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M.C., and G.A. Keoleian. 2000. Life cycle-based sustainability indicators for assessment of the U.S. food system. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heltberg, R. 1998. Rural market imperfections and the farm size-productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan. World Development 26(10): 1807–1826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, R.J. 2007. The genomics revolution and development studies: science, poverty, and politics. Journal of Development Studies 43(1): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillel, D. 1991. Out of the earth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt-Giménez, E. 2002. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93(1–3): 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D.U., D.E. Bignell, V.K. Brown, L. Brussaard, J.M. Dangerfield, D.H. Wall, D.A. Wardle, D.C. Coleman, K.E. Giller, P. Lavelle, W.H. Van der Putten, P.C. De Ruiter, J. Rusek, W.L. Silver, J.M. Tiedje, and V. Wolters. 2000. Interactions between aboveground and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms, and feedbacks. BioScience 50(12): 1049–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A.J. Symstad, J.H. Vandermeer, and D.A. Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75(1): 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J.B., G.C. Daily, and P.R. Ehrlich. 2002. Conservation of tropical forest birds in countryside habitats. Ecology Letters 5(1): 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, I., J.S. Clark, M.C. Dietze, K. Feeley, M. Hersh, S. LaDeau, A. McBride, N.E. Welch, and M.S. Wolosin. 2006. Predicting biodiversity change: Outside the climate envelope, beyond the species–area curve. Ecology 87(8): 1896–1906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads: international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. Washington, DC: Island Press. http://www.agassessment.org/. Accessed 8 June 2009.

  • International Steering Committee of the Forum for Food Sovereignty (ISC-FFS). 2003. What is food sovereignty. http://www.nyeleni2007.org/spip.php?article87. Accessed 9 January 2008.

  • Izac, A.-M., and P.A. Sanchez. 2001. Towards a natural resource management paradigm for international agriculture: the example of agroforestry research. Agricultural Systems 69(1–2): 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James Jr., H.S. 2006. Sustainable agriculture and free market economics: Finding common ground in Adam Smith. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 427–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James Jr., H.S., and F. Rassekh. 2000. Smith, Friedman, and self-interest in ethical society. Business Ethics Quarterly 10(3): 659–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, D., and T. Hodgkin. 1999. Wild relatives and crop cultivars: detecting natural introgression and farmer selection of new genetic combinations in agroecosystems. Molecular Ecology 8: 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, T.C. 1981. Why do Apo Kayan shifting cultivators move? Borneo Research Bulletin 12(1): 16–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, L.S., K. Lipton, A. Manchester, and V. Oliveira. 1997. Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. Food Review 20(1): 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibblewhite, M.G., K. Ritz, and M.J. Swift. 2008. Soil health in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B 363(1492): 685–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirner, L., and R. Kratochvil. 2006. The role of farm size in the sustainability of dairy farming in Austria: An empirical approach based on farm accounting data. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(4): 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A.-M., I. Steffan-Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. 2006. Rain forest promotes trophic interactions and diversity of trap-nesting Hymenoptera in adjacent agroforestry. Journal of Animal Ecology 75(2): 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koont, S. 2004. Food security in Cuba. Monthly Review 55(8): 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, S.B., J.P. Reganold, J.D. Glover, J.M. Bohannan, and H.A. Mooney. 2006. Reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced denitrifier activity and efficiency in organically fertilized soils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(12): 4522–4527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann, F., K.-H. Erb, S. Gingrich, C. Lauk, and H. Haberl. 2007. Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecological Economics 65(3): 471–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kromp, B. 1999. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 74(1–3): 187–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R.L. 2003. Inverse productivity: land quality, labor markets, and measurement error. Journal of Development Economics 71(1): 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappé, F.M., J. Collins, P. Rosset, and L. Esparza. 1998. World hunger: Twelve myths, 2nd ed. New York: Grove Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, P., and G.G. Harrigan. 2007. Opportunities and surprises in crops modified by transgenic technology: Metabolic engineering of benzylisoquinoline alkaloid, gossypol, and lysine biosynthetic pathways. Metabolomics 3(3): 371–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, P., and B. Pashanasi. 1989. Soil macrofauna and land management in Peruvian Amazonia (Yurimaguas, Loreto). Pedobiologia 33(5): 283–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, J.H., and R.M. May (eds.). 1995. Extinction rates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leakey, R.R.B. 1999. Agroforestry for biodiversity in farming systems. In Biodiversity in agroecosystems, ed. W.W. Collins, and C.O. Qualset. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M.A., and P. Kareiva. 1993. Allee dynamics and the spread of invading organisms. Theoretical Population Biology 43(2): 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, B.B., I. Perfecto, and J.H. Vandermeer. 2008. Synergies between agricultural intensification and climate change could create surprising vulnerabilities for crops. BioScience 58(9): 847–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockeretz, W. 1989. Problems in evaluating the economics of ecological agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 27: 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockeretz, W. 1991. The organization and coverage of research on reduced use of agricultural chemicals. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 36(3–4): 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockeretz, W. 1995. Organic farming in Massachusetts—An alternative approach to agriculture in an urbanized state. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(6): 663–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance, R., P.F. Hendrix, and E.P. Odum. 1986. A hierarchical approach to sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1(4): 169–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loya-Ramirez, J.G., J.L. Garcia-Hernandez, J.J. Ellington, and D.V. Thompson. 2003. The impact of interplanting crops on the density predation of hemiptera predators. Interciencia 28(7): 415–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, G.W., and G.C. Daily. 2003. Tropical countryside bird assemblages: Richness, composition, and foraging differ by landscape context. Ecological Applications 13(1): 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W., W. Sanderson, and S. Scherbov. 2001. The end of world population growth. Nature 412: 543–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T.A., R.J. Torres, and R. Welsh. 2001. Scale of agricultural production, civic engagement, and community welfare. Social Forces 80(1): 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R.H. 1955. Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community stability. Ecology 36: 533–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, P. 1987. Can sustainable agriculture be profitable? Environment 29(4): 19–20, 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malatesta, M., C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, and M. Biggiogera. 2005. Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry 49(3): 237–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malthus, T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population (Norton critical edition, edited by Philip Appleman, 1976). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margosian, M.L., K.A. Garrett, J.M.S. Hutchinson, and K.A. With. 2009. Connectivity of the American agricultural landscape: Assessing the national risk of crop pest and disease spread. BioScience 59(2): 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mari Gallagher Research and Consulting Group. 2007. Examining the impacts of food deserts on public health in Detroit. Chicago, IL: LaSalle Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matson, P.A., W.J. Parton, A.G. Power, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277(5325): 504–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R.M. 1972. Will a large complex system be stable? Nature 238: 413–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melnychuk, N.A., O. Olfert, B. Youngs, and C. Gillot. 2003. Abundance and diversity of Carabidae (Coleoptera) in different farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95(1): 69–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.C. 1983. Eco-agriculture: A review of its history and philosophy. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 1: 181–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moguel, P., and V.M. Toledo. 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conservation Biology 13(1): 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monastra, G., and L. Rossi. 2003. Transgenic foods as a tool for malnutrition elimination and their impact on agricultural systems. Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 96: 363–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, T.P., and J. Sánchez-Choy. 2001. Health, biodiversity, and natural resource use on the Amazon frontier: an ecosystem approach. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 17(Suppl.): 181–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Gardening Association. 2009. The impact of home and community gardening in America. South Burlington, VT: National Gardening Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Alternative agriculture/Committee on the role of alternative farming methods in modern production agriculture. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederveen Pieterse, J. 2004. Towards democratic globalization: to WTO or not to WTO? Development and Change 35(5): 1057–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neher, D.A. 1999. Soil community composition and ecosystem processes: comparing agricultural ecosystems with natural ecosystems. Agroforestry Systems 45: 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neher, D.A., and C.L. Campbell. 1994. Nematode communities and microbial biomass in soils with annual and perennial crops. Applied Soil Ecology 1: 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netting, R. 1993. Smallholders, householders. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, B.C. 2005. Population scenarios based on probabilistic projections: An application for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Population and Environment 26(3): 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B.H. 2009. World Trade Week 2009 proclamation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-World-Trade-Week/. Accessed 8 June 2009.

  • Oduol, J.B.A., and M. Tsuji. 2005. The effect of farm size on agricultural intensification and resource allocation decisions: Evidence from smallholder farms in Embu District, Kenya. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture Kyushu University 50(2): 727–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offermann, F., and H. Nieberg. 1999. Economic performance of organic farms in Europe. Hohenheim, Germany: University of Hohenheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield, M., and J.B. Alcorn. 1987. Conservation of traditional agroecosystems. BioScience 37: 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, D.W. 1994. The effective shape of our future. Conservation Biology 8(3): 622–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacini, C., A. Wossink, G. Giesen, C. Vazzana, and R. Huirne. 2003. Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95(1): 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S., and N.H. Lampkin (eds.). 1994. The economics of organic farming: An international perspective. Wallingford; Oxon, UK: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R.C. 2008. Stuffed and starved: the hidden battle for the world food system. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patnaik, U. 1991. Food availability and famine: A longer view. The Journal of Peasant Studies 19(1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, N., N. Arsenault, and P. Tyedmers. 2008. Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environmental Management 42(6): 989–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., and J.H. Vandermeer. 2002. Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conservation Biology 16(1): 174–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., and J.H. Vandermeer. 2008. Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: a new conservation paradigm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134(1): 173–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., J.H. Vandermeer, P. Hanson, and V. Cartin. 1997. Arthropod biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation 6(7): 935–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D. 2006. Impacts of organic farming on the efficiency of energy use in agriculture: An Organic Center State of the Science review. Foster, RI: The Organic Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., and W. Dazhong. 1990. Technological changes in energy use in U.S. agricultural production. In Agroecology, ed. C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer, and P.M. Rosset. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. 1996. Food, energy, and society. CO University Press of Colorado: Niwot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., L. McLaughlin, A. Zepp, B. Lakitan, T. Kraus, P. Kleinman, F. Vancini, W.J. Roach, E. Graap, W.S. Keeton, and G. Selig. 1991. Environmental and economic effects of reducing pesticide use. BioScience 41(6): 402–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J. Nelson, V. Lipner, S. Giordano, A. Horoqitz, and M. D’Amore. 1992. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42(10): 750–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., O. Bailey, P. Kim, E. Mullaney, J. Calabrese, L. Walman, F. Nelson, and X. Yao. 1999. Will limits of the Earth’s resources control human numbers? Environment, Development and Sustainability 1(1): 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, D. Douds, and R. Seidel. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55(7): 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, S.L. 1979. Complexity and stability: another look at MacArthur’s original hypothesis. Oikos 33: 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, S.L., G.J. Russell, J.L. Gittleman, and T.M. Brooks. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269(5222): 347–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2003. Global food security: facts, myths, and policy needs. In IFA-FAO Agricultural Conference, 21, Rome, Italy. Available on-line at http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/news/2003_9.asp.

  • Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. The Penguin Press: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, C., J.N. Pretty, I. Crute, C. Leaver, and H. Dalton eds. 2008. Theme issue ‘Sustainable agriculture I’. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, Series B 363(1491): 445–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prefeitura Municipal de Belo Horizonte (PMBH). 2006. ONU fará observação sobre as políticas sociais de Belo Horizonte. Diário Oficial do Município, Belo Horizonte XII(2582: 4/7/2006): 1.

  • Pretty, J. 2002. Agri-culture: reconnecting people, land, and nature. London: Earthscan Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J.N. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles, and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J., and R. Hine. 2001. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: A summary of new evidence. Final report from the “SAFE-World: The potential of sustainable agriculture to feed the world” Research Project. Wivenhoe Park, UK: Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J.N., J.I.L. Morison, and R.E. Hine. 2003. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95(1): 217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J.N., A.S. Ball, T. Lang, and J.I.L. Morison. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: an assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J.N., A.D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R.E. Hine, F.W.T. Penning de Vries, and J.I.L. Morison. 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology 40(4): 1114–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prugh, T., R. Costanza, and H.E. Daly. 2000. The local politics of global sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramakrishnan, P.S. 1992. Shifting agricultural and sustainable development: An interdisciplinary study from North-Eastern India. Paris; Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravnborg, H.M. 2003. Poverty and environmental degradation in the Nicaraguan hillsides. World Development 31(11): 1933–1946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R.E., and V.D. Nazarea. 1999. Local management of biodiversity in traditional agroecosystems. In Biodiversity in agroecosystems, ed. W.W. Collins, and C.O. Qualset, 215–236. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts, T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158: 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, C. 2001. Urban food security policy: The case of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Journal for the Study of Food and Society 5(1): 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, C. 2003. Urban food security policy and programs—The case of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Course Notes for Food and Nutrition Policy (FNP) 500: Advanced Issues in Professional Practice. Toronto, Ontario: Ryerson University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, C., and A.V. Aranha. 2003. Urban food policies and rural sustainability—How the municipal government of Belo Horizonte is promoting rural sustainability. http://www.ryerson.ca/~foodsec/Documents/belo_ruralsus.html. Accessed 23 January 2006.

  • Rocha, C. 2007. Food insecurity as market failure: A contribution from economics. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 1(4): 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, C. 2009. Developments in national policies for food and nutrition security in Brazil. Development Policy Review 27(1): 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, A.S.L., S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, R.M. Cowling, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, K.J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, J.S. Long, P.A. Marquet, J.D. Pilgrim, R.L. Pressey, J. Schipper, W. Sechrest, S.N. Stuart, L.G. Underhill, R.W. Waller, M.E.J. Watts, and X. Yan. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojstaczer, S., S.M. Sterling, and N.J. Moore. 2001. Human appropriation of photosynthesis products. Science 294(5551): 2549–2552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root, R.B. 1973. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats—Fauna of collards (Brassica-Oleracea). Ecological Monographs 43(1): 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, P. 1999. Policy brief number 4: The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E. 1993. War on insects: warfare, insecticides, and environmental change in the United States, 1970–1945, PhD Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

  • Ryan, M., J. Lynn, W. Schomberg, and D. Palmer. 2008. Tough road this spring seen for Doha trade talks. The Guardian UK [electronic version], 29 February 2008.

  • Saito, T., and T. Miyata. 2005. Situation and problems on transgenic technology for insect pest control. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 49(4): 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salick, J., and L.C. Merrick. 1990. Use and maintenance of genetic resources: Crops and their wild relatives. In Agroecology, ed. C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer, and P.M. Rosset, 517–548. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanden, M., A. Krogdahl, A.M. Bakke-Mckellep, R.K. Buddingtonn, and G.I. Hemre. 2006. Growth performance and organ development in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. parr fed genetically modified (GM) soybean and maze. Aquaculture Nutrition 12(1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido, O., J. Romeis, and F. Bigler. 2007. Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: Ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology 107: 235–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, D. 2008. Climate change, biofuels and eco-social impacts in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B 363(1498): 1747–1752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Vogt, D. 1998. Defining degradation: The impacts of swidden on forests in Northern Thailand. Mountain Research and Development 18(2): 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroth, G., G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L. Vasconcelos, and A.-M.N. Izac (eds.). 2004. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searchinger, T.D., and R.A. Houghton. 2008. Biofuels: Clarifying assumptions: Response. Science 322(5900): 371–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semal, J. 2006. Impacts physiologiques de certains OGM (Physiological effects of some GMOs). Cahiers Agricultures 15(3): 313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 1984. Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 1994. Population: delusion and reality. New York Review of Books 41(15): 62–71.

  • Séralini, G.-E., D. Cellier, and J.S. de Vendomois. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52(4): 596–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirai, Y. 2007. Nontarget effect of transgenic insecticidal crops: overview to date and future challenges. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 51(3): 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 2008. Soil not oil: Environmental justice in a time of climate crisis. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumar, M.V.K. 2007. Interactions between climate and desertification. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 142(2–4): 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, S. 2007. Fewer people may not mean more forest for Latin American forest frontiers. Biotropica 39(4): 443–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smail, J.K. 2003. Remembering Malthus III: Implementing a global population reduction. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122(3): 295–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, J., and J. Nasr. 1992. Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Environment and Urbanization 4(2): 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., and J.B. MacKinnon. 2007. The 100-Mile diet. Toronto: Random House Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolik, J.D., T.L. Dobbs, and D.H. Rickerl. 1995. The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10(1): 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somarriba, E., C.A. Harvey, M. Samper, F. Anthony, J. González, C. Staver, and R. Rice. 2004. Conservation of biodiversity in neotropical coffee (Coffea arabica) plantations. In Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes, ed. G. Schroth, G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L. Vasconcelos, and A.-M.N. Izac. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soule, J.D., D. Carre, and W. Jackson. 1990. Ecological impact of modern agriculture. In Agroecology, ed. C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer, and P.M. Rosset, 165–188. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steingraber, S. 1997. Living downstream: An ecologist looks at cancer and the environment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale, E.A., N.H. Lampkin, M. Hovi, R. Keatinge, E.K.M. Lennartsson, D.W. Macdonald, S. Padel, F.H. Tattersall, M.S. Wolfe, and C.A. Watson. 2001. Agronomic and environmental implications of organic farming systems. Advances in Agronomy 70: 261–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer, P.C., R.O. Bierregaard Jr., C. Strong, and T.E. Lovejoy. 2006. Long-term landscape change and bird abundance in Amazonian rainforest fragments. Conservation Biology 20(4): 1212–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struever, S. 1971. Prehistoric agriculture. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press for the American Museum of Natural History.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, M.J., and J.M. Anderson. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem function in agricultural systems. In Biodiversity and ecosystem function, ed. E.-D. Schulze, and H.A. Mooney, 14–41. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, M.J., J.H. Vandermeer, P.S. Ramakrishnan, J.M. Anderson, C.K. Ong, and B.A. Hawkins. 1996. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: ecosystem analyses. In Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed. V.H. Heywood, H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, R. Dirzo, and O.E. Sala, 443–446. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, M.J., A.-M.N. Izac, and M. van Noordwijk. 2004. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking the right questions? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104(1): 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, S.R., and S.J. Scherr. 1999. Effects of demographic and related microeconomic change on land quality in hills and mountains of developing countries. World Development 27(6): 903–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418(6898): 671–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinker, P.B. 1997. The environmental implications of intensified land use in developing countries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 352(1356): 1023–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toledo, V.M. 1990. The ecological rationality of peasant production. In Agroecology, small-farm development, ed. M.A. Altieri, and S. Hecht. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomov, B.W., and J.S. Bernal. 2003. Effects of GNA transgenic sugarcane on life history parameters of Parallorhogas pyralophagus (Marsh) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasitoid of Mexican rice borer. Journal of Economic Entomology 96(3): 570–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonitto, C., M.B. David, and L.E. Drinkwater. 2006. Replacing bare fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: A meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112(1): 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonitto, C., M.B. David, C. Li, and L.E. Drinkwater. 2007. Application of the DNDC model to tile-drained Illinois agroecosystems: model comparison of conventional and diversified rotations. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 78(1): 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trewavas, A. 2002. Malthus foiled again and again. Nature 418(6898): 668–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., A.-M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan-Dewenter, and C. Thies. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8(8): 857–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., R. Bommarco, Y. Clough, T.O. Crist, D. Kleijn, T.A. Rand, J.M. Tylianakis, S. van Nouhuys, and S. Vidal. 2007. Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biological Control 43(3): 294–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ucko, P.J., and G.W. Dimbleby. 1969. The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. London: Gerald Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ukrainetz, H., C.A. Campbell, V.O. Biederbeck, D. Curtin, and O.T. Bouman. 1996. Yield and protein content of cereals and oilseed as influenced by long-term use of urea and anhydrous ammonia. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76(1): 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 2004. Frequently asked questions. http://www.unccd.int/knowledge/faq.php. Accessed 28 January 2008.

  • United Nations Millennium Project (UNMP). 2005. Halving hunger: It can be done. London: UN Taskforce on Hunger/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Farmers market growth. http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/FarmersMarketGrowth.htm. Accessed 26 February 2008.

  • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Farm income and costs: Farms receiving government payments. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/govtpaybyfarmtype.htm. Accessed 22 March 2009.

  • Uphoff, N. 2007. Agroecological alternatives: capitalising on existing genetic potentials. Journal of Development Studies 43(1): 218–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bosch, R. 1978. The pesticide conspiracy. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H. 1989. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H. 1995. The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H. 1996. Reconstructing biology: Genetics and ecology in the New World Order. Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H., and R. Carvajal. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. The American Naturalist 158(3): 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H., and T. Dietsch. 2003. The fateful dialectic: agriculture and conservation. Endangered Species Update 20(4–5): 199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H., and I. Perfecto. 1997. The agroecosystem: a need for the conservation biologist’s lens. Conservation Biology 11(3): 591–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H., M. van Noordwijk, J.M. Anderson, C.K. Ong, and I. Perfecto. 1998. Global change and multi-species agroecosystems: Concepts and issues. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 67: 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H., D. Lawrence, A. Symstad, and S.E. Hobbie. 2002. Effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems. In Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Synthesis and perspectives, ed. M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, 221–236. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J.H., I. Perfecto, S.M. Philpott, and M.J. Chappell. 2008. Reenfocando la conservación el paisaje: La importancia de la matriz. In Evaluacion y conservacion de la biodiversidad en paisajes fragmentados de Mesoamerica, ed. J.C. Saenz, and C.A. Harvey, 75–104. Editorial Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio): Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. 2007. Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54(4): 387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325): 494–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., and W.A. Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Islands, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissinger, A.K. 1990. Technologies for germ plasm conservation ex situ. In The preservation and valuation of biological resources, ed. G.H. Orians, F.M. Brown, W.E. Kunin, and J.E. Swierbinski, 3–31. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical rain forests of the Far East, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willer, H., and M. Yussefi, eds. 2007. The world of organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends 2007. Bonn, Germany, and Frick, Switzerland: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL).

  • Wilson, A., J. Latham, and R. Steinbrecher. 2004. Genome scrambling—Myth or reality? Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic crop plants. Brighton, UK: EcoNexus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi, K.D. Joshi, and B.R. Sthapit. 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. 1 Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture 32(4): 445–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 1996. Trace elements in human nutrition and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. 2005. Falta petroleo! Perspectives on the emergence of a more ecological farming and food system in post-crisis Cuba, PhD Dissertation. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University.

  • Young, A. 1999. Is there really spare land? A critique of estimates of available cultivable land in developing countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability 1(1): 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zentner, R.P., C.A. Campbell, V.O. Biederbeck, F. Selles, R. Lemke, P.G. Jefferson, and Y. Gan. 2004. Long-term assessment of management of an annual legume green manure crop for fallow replacement in the Brown soil zone. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84(1): 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerer, K.S. 1998. The ecogeography of Andean potatoes. BioScience 48(6): 445–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank J. Vandermeer for his help and mentorship, and K. Avilés Vázquez, S. Hepburn, S. Philpott, M. Reiskind, E. Werner, and R. Nussbaum for their helpful comments. Thanks also go to S. Uno, E. Peterson Dickson, and I. Carbonell for help with translations of some foreign language references. This paper also greatly benefited from conversations with the members of the New World Agriculture and Ecology Group, with special thanks owed to G. Smith, C. Badgley and I. Perfecto, and from additional comments by L. DeLind, H. James, and four anonymous reviewers. D. E. Nelson provided editorial assistance. All errors are ours. MJC received financial support from the National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Education Foreign Language and Area Studies Program, the National Security Education Program David Boren Fellowship, and the University of Michigan’s Merit Fellowship Program and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. LAL received support from the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program of the University of Michigan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Michael Jahi Chappell

  2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Liliana A. LaValle

Authors
  1. Michael Jahi Chappell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liliana A. LaValle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Jahi Chappell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chappell, M.J., LaValle, L.A. Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis. Agric Hum Values 28, 3–26 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9251-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9251-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation