Surveying the Landscape, Part I

In order to have a lively conversation about the present and future of our food, I decided to jot down some notes about what works in the current system and what doesn’t. These are not yet well researched theses, but rather a collection of thoughts about the landscape. Future posts will delve into more detail in these areas, but for now, here is a summary of how I see our condition.

WHAT IS WORKING?

Production – Yeah, we’re getting a lot out of the land - maybe too much. The Green Revolution worked in some places, so we have a huge supply of a few staple crops. In fact, four billion of our approximately six billion people are neither malnourished nor obese. I’m just not sure that a 2/3 success rate on properly feeding the human population is indeed a success. In fact, I would probably categorize this as tragic. Thus, while I will keep production in the “is working” category, its ramifications certainly belong in the other.

Distribution – I can get just about anything I want, just about anytime I want it. That is remarkable, and when I crave a pineapple in Minnesota in January, I really enjoy being able to have it. Yet the fact that I have learned to not only enjoy it, but also to expect it, is problematic. It’s also appalling that our distribution system gets the pineapple to me and my rich-world friends but can’t get core crops to the neediest places on earth (I’m not going to go into the politics of food aid yet, so let’s leave it at that).

To my way of thinking, global distribution of food products is good as long as it is done in environmentally and socially sensitive ways. This qualification is missing from our current system, and as a result we are entrenching our separation from the realities of agricultural production – the inches of rain that fell on the field, the freeze that got the strawberry crop in Florida, the pest that destroyed the sweet corn. So, our current capability in food distribution belongs in the “is working” section, but the implications for consumer expectations, disconnect from natural processes, and inequitable allocation of that food probably means that it should be categorized elsewhere.

Food companies care – I’m not joking. I think they do. Companies like Nestle, Danone, and even General Mills are participating in a number of sustainable agriculture industry groups, including the Sustainable Food Lab, the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, and the Keystone Alliance. These companies and their peers seem to be taking more seriously than they used to the need to consider the environmental and social impact of agricultural production. Some of them even provide alternatives (though expensive ones) to the highly processed foods they are known for. Some of these companies recognize that their success in the long term depends on the viability of the agricultural ingredients they use, and they are taking steps toward alleviating their environmental impact. Even if they’re in this to capture a segment of the market that is willing to pay a little more to be a little more comfortable with their food choices, these companies are committing time, money, and people to building a more sustainable agricultural system.

People are paying attention – Food is getting a lot of attention in the press. Michael Pollan helps, but Michelle Obama’s interest is especially endearing. What is most exciting about her role in the food and agriculture world is that she is tying together human health and nutrition with environmental health. These two disciplines have typically been kept separate, with the health advocates and environmental activists pursuing completely separate agendas. For the first time in my awareness, the inextricable link between how we produce our food and how we feed ourselves is being acknowledged.

The biggest surprise yet is that the USDA is helping! Foodies cringed when Tom Vilsack got the top job (he’s since redeemed himself in most of those circles, I think), but when Kathleen Merrigan, formerly of Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, came on as Deputy Secretary, the alternative food world rejoiced. In recent months, the USDA has launched programs like Know Your Farmer Know Your Food that, even though they are still pretty clunky to use, show that the USDA means to do something to improve our food.

Phew, those were hard to come up with. I spend so much time thinking about what’s wrong that I have to remind myself which pieces of the current system might be worth saving (with revision). Next up will be the aspects of current reality that I believe are in urgent need of change.