Ag Progress

It’s no secret that there is a lot of public discourse about the food system. “Food Inc.” is making the rounds in selected theaters and will soon appear in State College. The Omnivore’s Dilemma and Fast Food Nation became national best-sellers. There are organic gardens at the White House and at the Whitten Building (USDA’s headquarters on the Capitol Mall). A Missouri farmer named Blake Hurst recently rebutted the perspective of Michael Pollan and others, arguing that the production of our food, fiber, and fuel is a more complicated matter than is often portrayed and that both perspectives should receive air time. So, what, exactly, does ag progress mean?

In the United States, less than 2% of the population feeds the remaining 98%, and more. The world population exceeds 6 billion mouths and is projected (by the U.N.) to reach about 9 billion by 2050. What is more, 99% of that growth is expected in less-developed countries of the world – many of which today have the majority of those mouths more or less directly involved in producing their own food on a daily basis. The 50:1 consumer: producer ratio we experience here in the United States is not the global norm. What, then, does ag progress mean in this global perspective?

The 20th century saw incredible growth in the world’s food supply, growth that freed the population in most of the developed world from the need to worry about the source of their food. This increase in productivity was mirrored by an increase in availability of food. Government policies changed, and an industry emerged around diversifying how food is presented to the consumer. All of these changes have increased the choices that the average American has for food products, but it also increased that consumer’s isolation from the production of their food. Food became a good not so different from a television or a cell phone. It is a product with whatever features you might want, produced in some supply chain that we know nothing about. Progress?

I would argue that agriculture and our food system has, in fact, progressed, but the erosion of what I call food literacy is alarming. I feel strongly that we need a balanced system that provides an array of choices to consumers. This array of choices needs to arise from a production system that is both environmentally and economically sustainable. The movement to use foods that are produced locally is good for consumers and can be good for producers looking to capture some of the value-added that results from thinking retail or local wholesale rather than global wholesale of commodities. Choices between organically and conventionally produced foods provide choices for both consumers and producers.

But what will lead us forward to ensuring a stable food supply for those 9 billion mouths around the world is a combination of production systems. We will need new equipment, new genetic resources and technologies, new food processing techniques, and a will to distribute the right kinds of food to those who need it in order to meet this demand. These new resources – industrial agriculture in the thinking of some – must be used in a sensible and sustainable way. We also need to embrace food production systems that help to connect consumption with production so that there is an understanding of where our food comes from and – critically important to me as dean of an academic college focused on agriculture – an understanding of the role of continued research and education in improving our food system. Agriculture to most farmers is both a way of life and a business. The new technologies need to emerge and be adopted. Let us not confuse nostalgia with a desire for agriculture that is less “technological.” We need continued ag progress, and that progress will require that we blend the best attributes that technology can bring to our food system with production and distribution methods that better connect consumers with the source of their food. This will be progress.