The current public discussion about sustainability tends to paint a negative picture of agriculture unless it’s local and small. There’s an opportunity to change this discussion when you expand sustainability to a sustainable food system.

The dramatic increases in demand for food given population projections around the world and the rising middle class in developing nations (creating demand for animal protein and specialty crops) are undeniable. The reality is there’s demand for both large and small farms operating efficiently, sustainable and concurrently.

Discussions like this are beginning in stakeholder forums all over the world, and here’s further perspective on an opportunity well worth pursuing: http://bit.ly/d4HErO.

Agriculture, processors, retailers, restaurateurs – in fact, all players in the food system – are finding themselves caught in what may at first appear to be new and disparate pressures, but in fact is a convergence of various forms of a rising demand for more transparency.

There is a rising tempo calling for more transparency in the world of food. This can be prompted by activist agendas and viral videos. Demands for transparency range from the cost of food to nutrition to food safety to carbon-footprint information to country (or even county or farm) of origin information. It comes in the form of pressure on farmers to disclose more about how much of the natural resources they use (e.g., water), their employment practices or how animals are treated.

“The fact that much of this is taking place against a backdrop in which consumers (and voters) express declining trust and confidence in all of the big American economic and political institutions that are normally relied on to provide oversight and marketplace transparency, only makes the phenomenon more disorienting,” says Food Foresight* panelist Larry Kaagan of Kaagan Research Associates.

Charlene Li, co-author of the influential book on social media “Groundswell,” argues in Information-age.com for an opportunity to use openness strategically. She draws a distinction between openness and transparency. Transparency, she says, is simply about revealing information to outside parties. Furthermore, she says there’s no way anyone can be completely transparent and we aren’t even completely transparent in our closest personal relationships.

“Openness, on the other hand, implies the greater inclusion of third parties in the operations of a business,” said Li. “Whether it is explaining the motivation behind key decisions, by including customers and partners in the product innovation process, or by conducting customer support in open, public forums, or any other application of social technology that encourages participation.”

Push Forward Strategically

The food industry is, to this point, successfully described, for the most part, as not wanting consumers to know how food is produced. The challenge is to push back on the anti-agricultural forces in a smart way, without linking “crazy, extremist” positions with ethical/values/health concerns that don’t necessarily share the same platform. It doesn’t help to be hostile. Today, activists, business forces (e.g., venture capitalist funding new entrepreneurial enterprises), academics, government agencies and increasingly mainstream opinion leaders are skillfully connecting the dots between food safety, water quality, environmental degradation and animal welfare. Any attempts to demonize those voices or trivialize the concerns they raise in the public mind, won’t work. If fact, it is more likely to add fuel to the fire.

*Food Foresight is a trends intelligence collaboration between Nuffer, Smith, Tucker Inc. and the California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, University of California, Davis

Vocal stakeholders from all walks of life continue to challenge intensive food production and processing systems. Foundations, environmental NGOs, public health groups, medical associations, celebrity chefs and government officials from USDA’s secretary to local government planning agencies continue to support initiatives like home/community gardens, smaller local farms and sustainable agriculture.

Feeling threatened, some farmers and agricultural leaders are responding defensively. There’s anger and frustration about “inaccurate and unfair movies, magazine articles and undercover videos attempting to turn public opinion against agriculture.” Some are publicly framing agriculture’s critics as fringe elements or “crazies.”

But is this the way to respond? Many rational people embrace messages farmers consider misleading or inaccurate, and they are not likely to accept being told they are not sound in their thinking, beliefs and concerns. Isn’t a more constructive response one that acknowledges agriculture’s challenges and emphasizes that the sector is seeking solutions with an attitude of continuous improvement? Our Food Foresight panel would suggest that rebuilding agriculture’s brand around wholesome, straightforward and individual identities is a better route. “We are not angry, resentful or avoiding our responsibilities,”says Food Foresight panelist Nathan Rudgers, former agriculture commissioner for the state of New York and now with Farm Credit East. “We’re farmers doing the best we can to feed people healthy, affordable food in a responsible way.”

Big agriculture and agribusiness tend to be portrayed as industrial villains raking in big profits and government subsidies while running roughshod over the environment, farm animals and often their own workers. One would expect these voices to be from activist NGOs fighting for their causes — which they often are — but these are also views shared by everyday consumers increasingly interested in how their food is produced and where it comes from. There’s a clear dichotomy in perceptions about farmers and agriculture: On one hand, family farmers are seen as good. The romance of the farmer is highly valued in popular culture — multi-generational families caring for the land and struggling to maintain their farming way of life and their rural communities. On the other hand big agriculture is increasingly seen as bad in spite of large intensive agriculture being for the most part multi-generational family farms.  Is there an opportunity for bridging this great divide? We would say it’s an urgent imperative.

Authentically re-branding agriculture is one way. While agriculture may not have star communicators like Michael Pollan, it has an army of farmers who can put a face to farming starting in their own communities and expanding out through the Internet. There also can be NGO partners who might be engaged to speak out on mutually beneficial issues.

Getting more fully engaged in the issue discussions affecting the sector – like climate change, hunger and obesity – is still another opportunity. As the tenacious leaders of California’s Ag Vision will attest, it isn’t easy. These issues require straight talk – but with science as a foundation – and a long-term commitment to stakeholder engagement and two-way education.

The need to merge feeding objectives with increased productivity, poverty reduction, improved health and wellness, and sustainability is surfacing in multiple professional forums around the world. A sustainable international food system, inclusive of all kinds of food production on all sizes of farms, with increased application of science and technology is an emerging opportunity to change the conversation about production agriculture.

The ongoing public discussion about sustainability tends to make agriculture wrong unless its local or small farms, but the reality is feeding our communities, whether they be next door or around the world, lies with responsible food-production systems that produce all kinds of foods on all sizes of farms.

Some deplorable U.S. hunger statistics were published a couple of weeks ago in the Institute of Food Technologists newsletter.  A study from Feeding America, the nation’s largest domestic hunger relief group, reports more than 37 million people – one in eight Americans – receive emergency food annually. This is an increase of 46% over a 2006 study. Hunger in America 2010 is the first research study to capture the significant connection between the recent economic downturn and an increased need for emergency food assistance.

Couple this with estimates that the world will need 100% more food than currently produced to feed increases in world population by year 2050 and you see a daunting challenge in need of new and innovative solutions. The need to merge feeding objectives with increased productivity, poverty reduction and sustainability is surfacing in multiple professional forums around the world.  It’s a movement long overdue.

Many growers and agricultural leaders are caught in the proverbial
headlights as a bullet train of “diverse stakeholder opinions” increasingly
defines acceptable agricultural systems and food products.

Foundations, environmental groups, public health groups, labor groups, chefs as well as the marketplace continue to demand change in agriculture in the name of healthier consumers, healthier animals and a healthier planet.

Expect crosscutting agri-food sector metrics to emerge for energy use, GHG
emissions, water use, water quality and, perhaps others, including working
conditions.

These initiatives include strange bedfellows that represent broad interests
that now are working together for common goals – a more profitable,
people-centered and environmentally restorative food system.

Growers who can translate these goals into practical business models will
create a unique competitive advantage.

Please visit The Packer to see the full story.