Feeding the World in 2050

Guest author Mark Moore, published Farm Industry News story

Conferences around the world consider how farmers will be able to feed the world’s growing population, which is expected to increase from 7 billion to 9 billion people by 2050.

Agricultural research and development will be very important, just as when it helped farmers keep up when the world’s population doubled over the last 50 years.

But the task looks more difficult ahead. Production research and development must address all types of farms, including the 400 million farms in the world with less than 5 acres each. All farms will be needed to feed the world in the future.

“There will continue to be a decreasing area of agricultural land available per person globally for food production,” says David Leaver, president of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants. For example, in 1967 there were 4.2 acres of cropland/person, and in 2007, just 1.7 acres of cropland/person were available.

Costs and regulations

While private investment in research in the developed world has been strong, overall funding has slowed over the past two decades, especially in the public sector. Adding to this concern is the global economic situation. “When in cases of financial stress, often research and development is the first to suffer,” Leaver says.

Besides funding, there are other tough obstacles for more research and development. One is the intricate maze that a new agricultural product must negotiate to come to market. A myriad of regulatory hurdles throughout the global food chain cost companies millions of dollars to handle.

Julia Wheeler, director of research and development for DuPont Crop Protection, says, “The challenge is the cost required to successfully develop the product and the resources required to bring it to market. To be successful, we must collaborate with regulatory agencies to not only improve food production, but also maintain export opportunities.”

Streamlining and harmonizing regulations would make the entire process more efficient for not only the companies involved, but the countries involved as well.

“Recently, DuPont worked with key regulators in five countries on a Global Joint Review project, in which the regulators collaborated in reviewing the global regulatory dossier,” Wheeler says. “We found that the Global Joint Review process actually reduced the product review time, even though each country conducted its own risk assessment. That’s because by sharing information on the dossier evaluation, each country decreased duplication of effort and reduced the overall amount of work required to register the product.”

Collaboration

Another key for the future of ag research and development will be collaborative efforts among all stakeholders. Already, U.S. farmers have seen collaborations between major ag biotech companies to deliver new products (SmartStax, for example). “Collaboration will be critical to encourage discovery, development and registration of new agricultural products,” Wheeler says. “We can’t operate in a vacuum.”

Leaver is critical of what he sees as “silos,” where information is not readily exchanged among organizations and where some ag research and development currently operates. “Global food security should be the focus of all our initiatives, and we need a coordinated approach to reach that goal,” he says.

Countries such as China are seeing the need to develop a secure food supply and continue to pour a tremendous amount of resources into agricultural research and development. “China is investing a lot in agriculture, especially biotech,” Wheeler says.

But research and development efforts also must include Africa, where food security is critical. Here small farmers remain a vital part of the food supply. Investments in research and development will be crucial to help these farmers contribute to the world’s food supply.

“For 40 years, global food production has kept pace with population growth and per-capita-income growth,” Leaver says. “Agricultural research and development has been a major driver of this increase. The next 40 years will mean similar productivity growth is required to satisfy the continuing rise in food demand.”

Wheeler says removing unnecessary barriers that prevent new technologies from getting into the hands of those who need it is critical to ensure continued investment. “We are in an era of urgent challenges and unique opportunities,” she says. “We must work together to meet these challenges.”

2010 Food System Summit

Can we trust our food?

There’s no doubt that America’s food system is complex and progressive. The process of getting food from farm to fork is extensive. Because of its vital importance, an annual summit is dedicated to learning from and bettering the methods by which we obtain our food.

The Food System Summit addresses food animal well-being, food safety, food industry technology and innovation and nutrition and health. The highlight of the event is the Center for Food Integrity (CFI) Consumer Trust Research Survey – a nationwide benchmark of current U.S. consumer opinion regarding trust in the contemporary U.S. food system.

According to its website, CFI was established in 2007 to increase consumer trust and confidence in the American food system, with the primary mission to promote dialogue, model best practices, address issues important to consumers and serve as a resource for accurate, balanced information.

This year, the summit was October 5 and 6 in Chicago.

Summit Feature Presentations Included:

• What Women Want: New Research about Beef Shopping and Implications for the Food Industry
• Religion’s Role in Framing the Discussion of Animal Well Being
• The Benefits of Modern Food Production in Today’s Economic Environment
• Technology and Today’s Food System – Cautions and Counsel

Listen to audio clips of news interviews with summit presenters.

The seminars are thought provoking and offer participants, comprising farmers, ranchers, processors, government and company associates, an opportunity for dialogue, though what most people are interested in is the annual survey that measures consumer opinion regarding food-production, transportation/handling and other issues.

Participants rated some questions using a 0-to-10 scale; “0” meant they had no concern about an issue and “10” meant they were very concerned about an issue.

The survey was conducted in August and polled 2002 people, 60 percent female and 40 percent male, using Survey Sampling International’s consumer Web panel (sampling error at 95 percent confidence level +/-2.2 percent).

Research Highlights:

• Early adopting consumers prefer online sources for information about the food system, followed by friends and family and their local television station.
• Traditional media sources, including newspapers and radio, were least preferred by early adopting consumers.
• Consumers view non-governmental organizations as the most credible sources about the humane treatment of farm animals.
• Following non-governmental organizations, consumers view farm-animal veterinarians and university experts as the most credible sources of information about the humane treatment of farm animals.
• An average rating of 6.94 was given to the question, “I trust food produced in the U.S. more than I trust food produced outside the U.S.”
• An average rating of 5.31 was given to the question, “I don’t care where my food was produced as long as it is affordable, safe and wholesome.”
• An average rating of 6.05 was given to the question, “The FDA strictly regulates the use of antibiotics given to animals raised for food.”
• An average rating of 7.22 was given to the question, “I would support a law in my state to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals.”
• An average rating of 6.25 was given to the question, “The use of herbicides and pesticides increases crop yields and crop quality, which means lower prices at the grocery store.”

There is less concern about food prices this year than the past two years, more confidence in the safety of food and more consumers feel that they have access to information about food origin, production and safety. 

The ultimate goal is to learn from the research findings and improve upon areas of concern.

“We are all stakeholders in our nation’s food supply – one of the safest, most abundant and most affordable in the world,” states CFI.

As the CFI continues its yearly survey and seminar, it will be interesting to witness how American consumers adjust or maintain their food-system perceptions.

*Photo obtained from www.michiganestateplanninglawblog.com

Survey reveals consumer thoughts about U.S. food system

Sustainability is a hot topic in agriculture lately, as consumers are bombarded with messaging about the price, safety and availability of food.

As food and agriculture coincide, sustainable agriculture is a movement interlocking the success of three concepts: farm profits, farm communities and eco-friendly farming practices.

The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) recently released results from its 2009 Consumer Trust Survey about sustainability. CFI is a nonprofit organization that promotes dialogue, advocates best practices, addresses consumer issues and serves as a resource for accurate, balanced information about the U.S. food system.

CFI member organizations represent each segment of the food chain, including farmers, ranchers, processors, government and companies that deliver food products under local, regional and global brand names.

The purpose of the survey was to better understand consumers’ decision-making processes in regard to food purchasing, since most consumers are largely uninformed, and to help build confidence in the American food system.

Survey respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their beliefs about the following stakeholders of the food system: farmers, restaurants, grocery stores and food companies.

Survey Highlights

• Consumers hold farmers most accountable for sustainability in the food system.
• Consumers hold restaurants least accountable for sustainability in the food system.
• Men are more trusting of the information that was presented than women.
• Consumers are willing to be educated about the food system.
• Consumers trust food more if it is made in the U.S.
• Food prices are not as great a concern for consumers as they were one year ago.
• Consumers do not consider organic food as healthy as they did two years ago.
• Consumers perceive farmers as most competent among industry groups and therefore, place the most trust and responsibility in them.

A Webinar presented by CFI about the survey, including survey questions, can be accessed at:

http://www.4shared.com/file/153522650/43682205/CFI_Consumer_Trust_Research_Webinar_--_Sustainability.html

As the results indicate, consumers’ trust in and expectations of farmers are great responsibilities to bear. Farmers are charged with creating and supplying an affordable, dependable food supply that meets sustainability standards.

Interestingly, respondents also believe that having shared values and ethics among industry members is more important than the groups truly demonstrating sustainability competence.

What conclusions do you draw from the survey results? What kinds of questions should the next survey include? How can farmers and other members of the food industry demonstrate their commitment to sustainability? Do farmers deserve more recognition for their role in the industry?

USDA Campaigns for Local, Regional Food Systems

Food and agriculture are at the center of national dialogue as of late, re-introduced to the masses because of the “Food, Inc.” movie release, TIME magazine commentary “America's Food Crisis and How to Fix It” and most recently, a new USDA campaign launch.

The government branch is allocating millions of dollars in its budget to spur a nationwide conversation about how food travels from farms to plates.

“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” is Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan’s initiative that aims to educate Americans about the importance of promoting local and regional food economies in our country’s food system to:

• Create new income opportunities for farmers
• Promote sustainable agriculture
• Generate wealth that remains in rural communities
• Supply healthier food
• Decrease energy expenditure

"An American people that is more engaged with their food supply will create new income opportunities for American agriculture," said Vilsack. "Reconnecting consumers and institutions with local producers will stimulate economies in rural communities, improve access to healthy, nutritious food for our families and decrease the amount of resources to transport our food."

The USDA will “use existing USDA programs to break down structural barriers that have inhibited local food systems from thriving” and has allocated the following toward the campaign:

• Risk Management Agency – $3.4 million for collaborative outreach and assistance programs to socially disadvantaged and underserved farmers. These programs will support “Know Your Farmer” goals by helping producers adopt new and direct-marketing practices. For example, nearly $10,000 in funding for the University of Minnesota will bring together experts on food safety and regulations for a discussion of marketing to institutions like K-12 schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and other health-care facilities.
• USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service proposed regulations to implement a new voluntary cooperative program under which select state-inspected establishments will be eligible to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. The new program was created in the 2008 Farm Bill and will provide new economic opportunities for small meat and poultry establishments, whose markets are currently limited.
• Rural Development – $4.4 million in grants to help 23 local business cooperatives in 19 states. The member-driven and member-owned cooperative business model has been successful for rural enterprises and brings rural communities closer to the process of moving from production-to-consumption as they work to improve products and expand appeal in the marketplace.
• USDA's Rural Development will also announce a Rural Business Opportunity Grant in the amount of $150,000 to the Northwest Food Processors Association. The grant will strengthen the relationship between local food processors and customers in parts of Idaho, Oregon and Washington and will also help the group reduce energy consumption, a major cost for food processors.

Advocates of buying locally produced foods cite safety and transportation-energy costs as primary factors in the dialogue.

Michael Abelman, founder and executive director emeritus of the Center for Urban Agriculture at Fairview Gardens, as well as a recognized practitioner of sustainable agriculture and proponent of regional food systems, commented about the government movement:

“We (society) are part of a broad movement reclaiming food from faceless, long-distance industrial providers. We're demanding not only that it be safe, but that it taste good – and that it be grown in a way that honors the land and those doing the work. And while it's true that we could slip up and make someone sick, the results of any carelessness would be smaller, more local.

“Food safety doesn't hinge on monitoring tiny bacteria. It depends on the most fundamental aspect of a healthy food system – relationships – biological, personal, ecological and local. Those relationships are on a scale small and, so, familiar.”

Vilsack solicits the campaign in a YouTube video and encourages consumer feedback to help shape the $65 million promotion at the campaign Web site via e-mails or comments via Twitter.

“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” poses the question, “Every family needs a farmer. Do you know yours?”

Will the campaign be successful in its goals to create awareness and change? What reforms/modifications to the food system should the USDA consider? Should any agribusinesses be concerned?

Food Inc. – Stirring the Pot

“You’ll never look at dinner the same way again” is “Food Inc.’s” tagline, a documentary with strong thoughts about corporate farming and the mechanics of the U.S. food system.

Director Robert Kenner created an aggressive film to offer Americans a detailed peek into food production from farm to plate. “Food Inc.” tackles several controversial issues related to our society’s food industry and unsubtly encourages vegetarianism and large-scale commercial organic production.

The documentary faults a food system dedicated to efficiency by highlighting divisive topics.

“Corn has conquered our world,” the film declares, citing that 90 percent of grocery-store goods contain corn or soybean ingredients, or both. The film contends that subsidizing such commodity crops is making the U.S. overweight. Consumers pay less for foods created from these food bases, which are higher in fat and calories, than they do for healthier options that are more costly to produce, preserve and store for farmers and companies.

“Food Inc.” also targets Monsanto, an agriculture company that sells seeds and other agricultural products, as monopolizing the seed industry. The company has patented multiple seed varieties that are staples within the industry. Monsanto is portrayed as an evil bully forcing farmers to purchase its seed to remain in business. The company is accused of wrongfully suing those that save and replant its year-to-year contracted seed instead of buying a new supply as legally obligated.

Of course Kenner showcases graphic scenes of animals in slaughterhouses and images of animals that are seemingly suffering on farms to lecture on the animal-cruelty angle.

Reactions have been mixed. Film critic Elizabeth Oppriecht wrote, “Personally? I left ‘Food, Inc.’, went straight to lunch and had a big ole’ fried-chicken salad. Much more reliable research should be and needs to be done to support or refute many of the insinuations made by the film. There are many obvious holes in the information presented.”

Advocates of the film include restaurant chain Chipotle, which is advertising the film throughout its nationwide locations, as well as cooking gurus Martha Stewart and Alice Walters and other celebrities.

Monsanto counteracted the “one-sided, biased” film with a Web site dedicated to presenting facts about misinformation presented by movie producers at (http://www.monsanto.com/foodinc/), where consumers can also e-mail the company with their questions. The company refutes an allegation that it declined to be interviewed and says that it actually invited the film crew to a trade show of which they chose not to attend.

“‘Food Inc.’ is counter-productive to the serious dialogue surrounding the critical topic of our nation’s food supply,” states the company’s Web site.

The documentary ends with a call-to-action for consumers, inciting them to practice animal-rights and environmentally conscious food purchasing with the motive, “You can change the world with every bite.”

Agriculture provides millions of industry-related jobs to Americans and is responsible for feeding not only our nation, but foreign countries as well. Corporate farming is designed to produce a low-cost, convenient and abundant food supply in a way that organic farming cannot compete with.

Will “Food Inc.” jeopardize the success of meatpacking companies and commodity crops? Will the U.S. witness an influx of organic spending at the supermarket? Will the federal government attempt to modify food-production laws?