To successfully feed the world's growing population organics will not cut it and the adaptation of new agricultural technologies is vital
Ever heard of greenwash?
It’s used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.
However, the greenwash term has been hi-jacked by the pro-environmental lobby – usually accusing companies, organisations or even countries of not living up to their ‘clean, green, sustainable’ expectations.
Many a hard working organisations – especially in NZ’s agricultural productive sector – have suffered the disdain of smug, eco-warrior-types who regularly deride the environmental merits of their products and/or systems.
More often than not, the primary sector has had to listen to sanctimonious lectures from the Green Party, Greenpeace, Soil and Health NZ – or some other ecological do-gooding group – accusing them of unleashing all sorts of environmental damage on our country.
Regularly these groups call for the wholesale conversion of NZ agriculture to organics – claiming it is the only way for the country to go to save us both environmentally and economically.
So it was with a sense of schadenfreude to hear that people are being greenwashed into thinking that certain types of technology-intensive agriculture are not environmentally friendly.
A recent Australian Farm Institute conference heard how relieving world hunger and ensuring food security are inextricably linked to adoption of new technology. According to Roger Cady, Elanco’s sustainability leader who spoke at the conference, if global food production has to double by 2050 – as suggested by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation – then 70% of this increase in production will have to come from new technology due to limitations in land and natural resource availability.
“Consumers are constantly being misled about the impact of some types of agriculture, and this is often biasing their food choices,” Cady says.
He says it is easy for people to be swayed by impressions and intuition – without considering the science, productive efficiency, and environmental impact per unit of output.
“Intensive agriculture is actually significantly more sustainable than most people are aware,” he says. “Today’s technology aided intensive agriculture is far more environmentally sustainable than historical agriculture because fewer resources, less water, and less land are used with less greenhouse gases produced per unit of food grown than by historical farming methods.”
Meanwhile, Brett Stuart, from US agricultural analysis company Global AgriTrends, told the conference that most consumers did not understand the social implications of perceived “socially-responsible” purchasing.
“Organic, locally grown, free range, and other anti-technology production methods typically increase the use of water and feed resources, and can lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions,” he says.
According to Stuart says it is actually “socially-irresponsible” to impose choice-restrictions on producers which then lead to higher food costs, felt mainly in the third world.
Actually because lower technology production is less efficient per unit of output, it inevitably contributes to the record food prices we are currently experiencing and pushing millions of people around the world into food-insecurity.
“Utilising technology effectively, will mean that while we need to double agricultural production by 2050, we will only occupy 13% more land to do it than was used in 2008,” Stuart says.
Now; that’s food for thought for all those pushing their sustainable organic barrows!