Mainstream farmers need to take the lead in sustainable agriculture

Thursday, January 3, 2013

With many food retailers and manufacturers now incorporating sustainability into their purchasing criteria, farmers must assume major leadership or risk having many of their farm management decisions set solely by food industry executives

by TERRY DAYNARD

The concept of sustainable development, specifically sustainable agricultural development, has been around for a quarter century. For most of this time, it has been equated with niche agriculture – organic, low-input types of production – and has generally been ignored by most of us in mainstream agriculture. We did not see how lower-output and higher-cost agriculture could ever represent more than a small portion of Canada's food supply, let alone feed a world population projected to exceed nine billion within a few decades.

All that has changed recently through new initiatives by food retailers and manufacturers to develop and use standards for sustainable agriculture in their purchasing decisions. Ontario farmers must assume major leadership in this process, or risk having many of their farm management decisions set solely by food industry executives – often with only a limited understanding of farming practices and driven by demands from anti-technology activists.

The concept of sustainable development as initially defined in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations, makes eminent good sense. "Sustainable development," it said, "is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, [recognizing] in particular the essential needs of the world's poor [and] limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs." The commission added that "technology and social organization can be both managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic growth."

Unfortunately, this definition was quickly redefined by other groups in the case of agriculture to words like "sustainable agriculture [has] at its core . . .  a rejection of the industrial approach to food production," and "sustainable agriculture embraces a wide range of techniques, including organic, free-range, low-input, holistic and biodynamic" (quotes from National Geographic). The Brundtland Commission's concern about addressing "the essential needs of the world's poor" has been generally ignored, one reason why people like me were turned off.

But, during the late 1990s, food retailers in Europe decided to incorporate sustainability considerations into their purchasing criteria – at first as individual companies, but then collectively. This has since spread worldwide, including into North America. Many of the world's largest food manufacturers and retailers, like Walmart, Nestlé, Unilever and McDonald's, have become key players. To list three of these collective initiatives:

• GlobalG.A.P. (the G.A.P. stands for "good agricultural practice") is a huge, European-based consortium with detailed protocols for agricultural production and accountability. It was formerly called, EurepGAP, and has now become global.
• The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative was also created about 10 years ago in Europe by (and with full membership restricted to) food manufacturers. Others can be associate members. It has also now gone global. A vice-president from McCain's Foods is on the executive committee.
• The Sustainability Consortium was created quite recently by 30 major companies led by Walmart, and is North American-based. Unlike the others, its scope extends beyond food and agriculture.

The farm production protocols for all of these groups still seem to be in relatively early stages of development. GlobalG.A.P. is the most advanced and its website describes certification criteria and processes for agricultural producers. This is likely to evolve very quickly, with comparable certification protocols being developed by the other groups, and also by some companies individually.

These standards are not likely to feature low-input, high-cost agricultural practices because these are generally inconsistent with corporate goals, and company executives do understand the need for affordable food for a growing global population. But, at the same time, food company executives are rarely experts in agriculture and are under constant – and increasingly effective – pressures from activist groups to require or exclude certain farm practices. (Consider the pressure to eliminate gestation crates for sows as an early example.) There is a full-time representative of the Environmental Defense Fund at Walmart's head office.

Phobias about genetically modified crops/organisms figure prominently in developing European standards. (There are lots of specifics about GM technology in GlobalG.A.P. standards, but almost nothing about risks from bacterial contamination.)

We have several advantages as farmers in Ontario and in Canada. For one, the movement by food companies to adopt or dictate sustainability standards is not nearly as advanced as in other parts of the world.

Second, our population is comparatively small with much of the food retail business still in Canadian ownership, rendering communication between farm groups and the food industry easier than in Europe and the United States.

Third, farm groups, especially in Ontario, have a good track record for proactive leadership on issues related to sustainability.

Ontario's (and now Canada's) Environmental Farm Plans are an excellent example of this leadership and could form a base for more proactivity under the mantle of sustainable agricultural development. The creation of farm-group coalitions for environmental initiatives is another plus, with perhaps the best example being the recent creation of Farm and Food Care, itself the amalgamation of two earlier coalitions, AGCare and the Ontario Farm Animal Council.

But Ontario agriculture must use what we have now as a base for moving forward rather than for resting on our laurels. We need to be aggressive in seeking opportunities for making our agriculture more sustainable. And we need to tell other Canadians what we are doing.

The definition of sustainable agriculture has often been narrowed to mean "environmentally benign," and that's important, but the Brundtland Commission intended more. Its report talks about opportunities for new technology which improves both sustainability and economic output. Agricultural sustainability must recognize the ability of farmers to enjoy standards of living equivalent to those of urban families and to be productive enough to feed a growing world population while meeting increasing demands for renewable non-food bioproducts. Modern genetics is a key part of this process, the phobias of Europeans and activist groups (often European-based too) notwithstanding.

I have enlarged on this theme and provided some reference links at www.tdaynard.com. Sustainable agricultural development represents both opportunity and threat. Let's emphasize the former and counter the latter. BF