News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Remaking agriculture's image: Battle for choice must be won 

Remaking agriculture's image: Battle for choice must be won

01 Dec, 2009 01:29 PM
NEARLY 1 billion people go hungry every day. In 50 years, a larger world population will need 100 per cent more food than is currently produced.

While adding acres of farmland and increasing cropping intensity can provide additional food, the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization concluded that only 70pc of the additional food needed can be produced by using both existing and new technological innovations.

Earlier this fall, Elanco president Jeff Simmons told the World Food Prize Symposium that in order to ensure that the growing population is fed, food producers cannot be limited in doing what they do best.

He outlined three key concepts - collaboration, choice and technology - that will enable food producers to provide an affordable, safe, sustainable and ample food supply for the 21st century.

What drives choice?

In the day of food contamination scares, there has been heightened awareness about the safety of the world's food supply, especially in what is a much more global marketplace today than ever before.

In the recent white paper 'Food Economics & Consumer Choice', Simmons cited a 2008 survey by the International Food Information Council that revealed that when consumers were asked about specific food concerns, half cited "disease and contamination" as the top item, yet only 7pc reported that they worry about agricultural production methods, and 1pc cited biotechnology (Figure).

Another study found that most consumers (nearly 70pc in 2008) assume that the meat and poultry they buy are safe, and only 17pc expressed a strong interest in knowing about modern food animal production, while nearly 60pc had little or no interest, preferring instead to trust the food supply chain to ensure food safety.

Recent polling in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Argentina and China found that taste, quality and price were the top considerations when choosing food products. Simmons added that 95pc of consumers look primarily to affordability when making food choices.

"Luxury food extremists are driving choice," he said, and their precautionary approach is preventing consumers from even being able to choose among animal production practices.

Simmons stressed that it is important for consumers to continue to be given choices.

"Consumers everywhere - whether they can afford organic foods or struggle to maintain a diet that sustains them - must be able to choose from an abundance of safe, nutritious food options," he said.

"To create this abundance, we must realise that the bulk of the world's food will be raised using conventional farming practices that leverage technological innovation to produce food efficiently," he continued.

"That, however, does not preclude the use of other food production methods, such as organic farming, which can continue to meet the desires of those consumers who can afford to pay a premium for unique production practices they might prefer."

Technology's role

In his white paper, Simmons notes that technology enables food producers to provide more high-quality grains and protein sources using fewer resources.

As an example, cattle growers use two-thirds less land to produce a pound of beef by conventional methods than from "all-natural" grass-fed cattle.

The dairy industry produces at least 58pc more milk with 64pc fewer cows than it did in 1944.

Researchers have found that the nationwide use of a Food & Drug Administration-approved swine feed additive could enable the US to maintain pork production levels while raising 11 million fewer hogs. This would also reduce demand for cropland used to grow feed grains by more than 2 million acres.

Technology also has played an important role in the poultry industry, Simmons wrote. The industry has seen a four- to six-fold increase in the slaughter weight of broiler chickens since 1957 due to careful genetic selection and improvements in nutrition.

Using modern production methods and technologies can also have a net positive impact on the environment.

As an example, conventional beef production practices can reduce greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef 38pc compared with an "all-natural" production method. Feed additives in swine can also reduce manure production.

As such, the agriculture sector can increase sustainability through a highly productive and efficient system that simultaneously protects the environment by means of a sensitive and efficient use of natural resources.

Here's the point

TODAY, one of the most pressing concerns about food is affordability, but with all the hype about production methods, biotechnology and food safety, some policies and advocacy groups are taking choice away from consumers.

The UK is a prime example of how elitist attitudes spurred food production changes that were implemented across the board and then turned one of the most productive agricultural regions from a net food exporter to a net food importer.

After yielding to pressures to ban (or not approve) growth enhancers, biotech crops or products and certain production practices, the UK now has low domestic productivity and relies on poultry and beef imports to meet consumer demand.

Elanco president Jeff Simmons warned that the US shouldn't walk the same path. "Don't turn a luxury choice into food law," he said.

Today, Elanco is devoting more financial resources to government and retail food chain affairs to better educate key decision-makers. Simmons said it is important to make sure economics and logic prevail and policy doesn't wrongly limit consumer choices.

Consumer confidence in the food supply remains relatively strong, having decreased only slightly over recent years. Affordability, quality and taste remain top concerns, although affordability does matter less to some consumers, particularly those in affluent countries.

Consumers who desire organic foods should have that choice; likewise, consumers who need efficiently produced, high-quality and affordable food deserve that choice as well.

All consumer preferences can and should be protected.

* Find these points and more at FeedstuffsFoodLink.com. Simmons' white paper, 'Food Economics & Consumer Choices: Why Agriculture Needs Technology to Help Meet a Growing Demand for Safe, Nutritious & Affordable Food', is available at the Elanco website.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Of course Mr Simmons doesn't want the changes to happen that would effect them financially. Industrial food production is flawed and to treat our food production like a factory has cause a moral dilemma and an ecological dilemma. E coli is now a major problem in the US. And for example in beef production, a grain fed steer has a more acid system which suits E coli, you take that same steer which has been tested for E coli and put them on grass for 5 days the E coli is gone. We are desertifying our farms by producing monocultures, nature operates within diversity, a desert has basically no diversity. We are beginning to realise that you can't short cut nature or ignore the principles of where by it operates.
Posted by Mike, 2/12/2009 3:55:13 AM
And as far a choice, the industrial food system doesn't want consumers to know how their food is produced because they may choose a more humane and natural food production system. Google Food Inc and see what I am talking about. We are farmers, it is time to get back to farming with nature not against it. And a far as food production, I have studied 2 ancient civilisations Mayans and Hawaiians, that produced massive amounts of food, so much so they are still studying how they did it.
Posted by Mike, 2/12/2009 4:10:31 AM
Let's get this right. Mr Simmons keeps refering to 'conventional' farming as opposed to organic farming but the word conventional implies traditional practice and the traditional practice of husbanding animals for over 10,000 years has been in a free-range environment - where they belong. Modern feedlot/intensive farming was a response to a US corn glut in the 1960s - so it is the new chum not the old time convention of farming grazing animals on grazing lands. Also when he is calculating landscape use does he also factor in soil degradation from cropping, the huge energy waste in turning pasture into bare soil paddocks, then planting them with a one type seed that then has to be chemical husbanded before it hopefully reaches grain maturity and is then harvested, stored, transported, steam rolled, moistened, mixed with flavour enhances and fed to the animals that would have preferred the original paddock????
Posted by deb, 2/12/2009 1:54:02 PM
Mr Simmons, When your multinational mates hijack the rest of Australia's agriculture, do you think your consumers will have a choice for clean, cheap food, or the factory produced garbage that's been dumped by the tons daily into this country. City people have no idea what real food taste likes or costs. Your factory produced imported food might be cheap now but you watch the price go through the roof once they have they have market control. I pity our future generations having to eat irradated, hormone and chemically tainted imported foods. This country is mad if it thinks food is going to stay cheap - your goverment has just raised the cost of water to farmers at $1200 a megalitre. For crying out loud thats 12 cents a litre. The average person uses 500 - 800 litres a day thats about $72 per person per day. Your food costs water. To grow a lettuce leaf costs $2.88 in water to produce, a glass of milk costs $31.20 in water to produce. A hamburger costs $625.44 in water to produce. A piece of chicken costs $195.84 in water to produce. A cup of rice costs $17.28 in water to produce. At the moment Australian farmers are giving you free food, and going broke enjoy it, it won't last.
Posted by Big Ted, 3/12/2009 12:28:10 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
25 November, 2009
27 November, 2009
01 December, 2009
POLL
Q: If an election were held next weekend, for which party would you vote?

Labor
(13.8%)

Liberal
(31%)

National
(34.5%)

Greens
(12.7%)

Family First
(1.3%)

Independent
(4.3%)

Other
(2.4%)

Total Votes: 1267
Poll Date: 29 November, 2009
SPECIAL FEATURES

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...