Given the fact that there has been a vital shift in the amount of knowledge consumers are demanding from agriculture, as well as a focus on the "how" of food production, I believe we need to adress the question: Can the ProFood movement co-exist with "conventional" agriculture? In short, I say yes, of course it can!
The first thing we need to do is divorce the connection between industrial agriculture and conventional agriculture. This may be a difficult task given the history of agriculture, but it is imperative we, as a society, make this happen. I work in agriculture, obviously, but do not farm. I spend a great deal of time with farmers and respect what they do and why they do it. There is a 100% garauntee that the family farms (of ALL sizes) that I work with are good stewards of the environment, focus on the welfare of their animals, and take very seriously the notion that "we are feeding the world". For this, we should all be thankful and provide our support for farmers. Now, are there some bad apples (no pun intended) out there? Absolutely! I reject the idea that these bad apples are the norm. Maybe that is my tendency as an eternal optimist coming out? So be it then! By lumping all these "conventional" farmers together with the current definition of industrial farming, we are doing a dis-service to the very many hard working farming families across our country. The vast majority of conventional farmers ARE NOT growing as much as they can with total dis-regard to the soil and the natural resources Mother Nature has blessed us with.
So back to the orginal question and my position of Yes. The ProFood movement is compromised of very educated consumers. In our country, change can only take place if it is driven by the consumer; the essence of a free market system. We in agriculture can, and should engage in this movement. To be frank, ProFood can learn from farmers who have been growing our food for many years. There is no amount of researching and education that can replace the knowledge of experience. Another reason we in agriculture need to engage is so we can propogate the innovations and technological advancements that have been made in production agriculture. These advancements have led to reduced chemical use, sustainable processes, and reduced water use, to name a few. Is this not a stepping stone in the ProFood ideals?
It is my position that conventional and sustainble will ultimately converge; once the economics become viable, and they are not now. By design, sustainable agriculture is closely related to organic methodologies. The tenents of organic growing require a shift in the labor required to produce crops. Technology is adopted on a limited basis in organic agriculture. Couple this with the fact that our population shows zero signs of decreasing. To the contrary, we have had rapid expansion in our population. I am not convinced that ProFood can sustain this rapid expansion; at least not in it's current form. On that note, it should be noted that conventional agriculture will also have to adapt, and has been for many years.
There is room for all types of farmers in the agricultural space. Each has a place and provides the food we require to sustain life. As we continue to engage in fruitful conversation about the growing of our food, it would do us all good to remember that a "conventional" farmer should not be associated with the negative connotaions of "industrial" agriculture. It is due to their hard work and determination that our country has flourished. We are all looking for better ways to produce our food.
Please stay tuned for more in depth posts touching on the agri-supply chain.
I appreciate this post, Nate, and I'm going to show you the respect of a completely truthful, honest answer, even though I'm afraid you might not like it.
I do not believe there is any way for a ProFood movement embracing sustainable, regional food systems to also embrace and support so-called conventional ag. And as often as I see 'conventional' farmers also claim to be sustainable, I have to call bull-hockey.
I live on the Delmarva Penninsula in Sussex County, Delaware. We push 600 million chickens through per year on this little 300km x 100km strip of land. We grow hundreds of thousands of acres of corn and soy to feed those chickens and still have to import more. We're home to Perdue, Allen, Mountaire and Tyson plants.
The result? Our wells are poisoned with unsafe levels of nitrates (1 in 3 in this county). Our ponds and streams are contaminated with pathogenic bacteria and blue-green algae. The pond where my dad taught me to fish is now so choked with algae, duckweed and cabomba from the levels of nutrient pollution that it has become a giant, stinking dead-zone. There are signs posted at popular fishing spots warning us against eating the fish we catch because of the bacteria levels in the water. This is NOT the land I grew up in! This is NOT the land that my ancestors cherished. This is NOT the land they farmed.
According to the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, agriculture the way we are currently practicing it is the number one reason for this pollution in the watershed. This isn't bias on my part. These are government and non-profit organizations commisionning study after study on the fact.
This is NOT sustainability, it cannot be. This is ruinous and my home has become a sacrifice zone, a toxic pollution dump, so that Americans, who have tripled their per capita chicken consumption in the last 30 years, can have their Buffalo wings on SuperBowl Sunday without having to deal with the million-bird chicken farms in their own backyard.
By asking that ProFood and conventional ag co-exist, you are asking that I accept the status quo, that I accept living with the pollution, and that I accept the destruction of my ancestral home. I cannot do that. I can and will continue to fight for a way of producing the food that we need in a way that is gentler on the ecosystem and the human population and I don't see that the status quo system, the one I am surrounded by every time I open my front door, has any place in that fight.
I will go further, and probably anger a lot of people, by saying that I do not believe that farming and farmers are too sacred a cow to criticize. While I firmly believe that by far the bulk of blame for this messed up food system lies on the shoulders of the billion dollar corporations pushing their agendas here in rural America, the farmer himself cannot entirely escape responsibility. Farmers may have a love for the land and for agriculture, but they are not super-humanly kind or benevolent. They are as much motivated by economics as any of us, and if it comes down to putting food on their own tables or going against Tyson's wishes and losing a contract, you can guess where their decision will fall. The path of good land stewardship is often intersected by the road of financial reality, and that is something that absolutely must change.
Whoa, that was a book already. I still have a lot more to say, but maybe I'll just save it for another time. Thanks again, Nate, for putting this post out there. I know we don't always agree, but I hope we can always have a good discussion.