There are three main pillars of sustainability – environmental, societal and economic – but it is the economic or financial one that matters most to the majority of people. That one is equally critical to farming, so if society does not send a signal down through the supply chain to indicate a financial benefit, then there is little to incentivise farmers to change production practices.
Policy can help, of course, and incentivisation is another way to bring about change on farms. These would come through policies or schemes that drive specific objectives through targeted measures that have been proven to deliver required objectives. While such measures may be desirable, provided they are adequately rewarded, there is little guarantee that they will add to the overall sustainability of the food chain.
Cheap food drives intensive
farming
Real sustainability must be driven through the food chain. Food has become very “cheap” and that is a major reason why modern farming practices must continue to intensify at a cost to soil, biodiversity, and the environment.
The consequences of these actions are well-known – greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia emissions, nitrates and phosphorus in water, pesticides in water, loss of diversity in nature, etc. But nowhere in this continuous change is there recognition as to what the causal factors are/were. Ultimately, many of the negatives are driven by the demand for cheap food.
As we absorb the words and aspirations of those who set the direction for future EU food policy, we see little in the way of a recognition of the real causes, or an obligation on society to be part of the solution.
We see food production being targeted to reduce output alongside a requirement that consumers be provided with theoretically safer food at no extra cost. Is this really a policy direction that further seeks to decrease the number of small family farm units by continuously eroding farm incomes?
Consumers must drive sustainability in all their choices
Consumers need to recognise the causes of the problems that exist in agriculture and their role in reversing them. Take the fabric industry as an example.
Plastics in clothes
We now live in a society where there is a disposable attitude to clothes. That once-off cotton tee-shirt embossed with a name, event or date that leaves it out of date on the following day.
Many of these do not even get a second life as rags.
The fashion industry can lead the way here. Choosing to use natural fibres increases the need for the process of photosynthesis to produce materials that can all go back into the earth (after multiple wears and uses) to complete the circular economy. Hydrocarbon-based fabrics all start with an energy source, so just because you ride a bicycle does not mean that you do not use oil.
It is now suggested that a big proportion of the plastic in our oceans comes from the microfibers that wash out of garments made from polyester-style fabrics.
They make their way into our oceans to pollute them with plastic that ends up in long-living marine life that can accumulate huge amounts of this over their lifetimes.
Do we still need to have such a reliance on plastic across the food and drinks industry?
Clothing from nature
A significant proportion of modern clothing is made of synthetic fibres while some natural fibres like wool are virtually worthless. Wool is a natural, compostable and easily renewable fibre for fabric production but its merits are being ignored by those who tell farmers what they should do.
The best way to influence farm practice is through price and profitability.
Then look at the shoes we wear. More and more, we see synthetic materials being used to replace the natural products – partly fashion and partly cost. In general, shoes not made from leather or natural fibres are laden with various incarnations of plastic – again, originating from hydrocarbons.
Leather is a by-product of animal production, a natural product that can serve many purposes and decompose at the end of its life. It was a traditional material used in shoe manufacture.
The changed face of food retail
Look at the way food retail has changed. There was a time when consumers went shopping with a basket to carry their “messages”. The food needed was picked from open trays and there was no packaging involved. But that required easy access to local shops that are now largely gone.
However, it was consumer choices that closed the small shops, not the supermarkets. Consumers followed lower prices and in doing that they put the small retailers, supplied by local farmers, out of business. After that, the large retailers put many small growers out of business.
Growers who remained had to specialise to survive. Now, a small number of potato and vegetable growers sell to individual wholesalers, with a similar story for butchers.
Produce is now hauled across the country, and back again, to get it to the outlets close to where these vegetables, and other products, used to be produced.
Buying with their eyes
Appearance, rather than taste, has come to dominate the food market. Potatoes and other vegetables are mainly purchased on appearance. This then became the focus of plant breeders who try to meet these requirements, often at the expense of taste.
Achieving appearance and uniform shape adds considerably to the cost of production. More pesticides are needed for aesthetic purposes.
We see that huge cost of destoning land – diesel, time, machinery and labour – become an essential part of the production process just to deliver appearance. And such practices are now a feature of all root vegetables and it is leading to considerable food waste.
If consumers are really interested in sustainability, they need to point the way in the decisions they make. Every purchase has a consequence. There must be greater emphasis on where food is produced and what clothing is made from. Lower-output farming systems need higher prices to be economically sustainable. The choices consumers make matter and farm households are also consumers.
Consumers, including farm families, need to buy into the requirement for sustainability if it is to become a real part of all our lives. Primary producers always respond to price signals so let production, processing and packaging requirements send a new signal down through the entire food chain.
Many of the stated ills of modern farming have been forced upon it by the indifference of consumers as to the consequences of their actions. Consumers influence farming practices, both directly and indirectly, by the purchasing decisions they make.The allegiance given to large supermarkets by consumers killed both small shops and small farmers at the same time.
There are three main pillars of sustainability – environmental, societal and economic – but it is the economic or financial one that matters most to the majority of people. That one is equally critical to farming, so if society does not send a signal down through the supply chain to indicate a financial benefit, then there is little to incentivise farmers to change production practices.
Policy can help, of course, and incentivisation is another way to bring about change on farms. These would come through policies or schemes that drive specific objectives through targeted measures that have been proven to deliver required objectives. While such measures may be desirable, provided they are adequately rewarded, there is little guarantee that they will add to the overall sustainability of the food chain.
Cheap food drives intensive
farming
Real sustainability must be driven through the food chain. Food has become very “cheap” and that is a major reason why modern farming practices must continue to intensify at a cost to soil, biodiversity, and the environment.
The consequences of these actions are well-known – greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia emissions, nitrates and phosphorus in water, pesticides in water, loss of diversity in nature, etc. But nowhere in this continuous change is there recognition as to what the causal factors are/were. Ultimately, many of the negatives are driven by the demand for cheap food.
As we absorb the words and aspirations of those who set the direction for future EU food policy, we see little in the way of a recognition of the real causes, or an obligation on society to be part of the solution.
We see food production being targeted to reduce output alongside a requirement that consumers be provided with theoretically safer food at no extra cost. Is this really a policy direction that further seeks to decrease the number of small family farm units by continuously eroding farm incomes?
Consumers must drive sustainability in all their choices
Consumers need to recognise the causes of the problems that exist in agriculture and their role in reversing them. Take the fabric industry as an example.
Plastics in clothes
We now live in a society where there is a disposable attitude to clothes. That once-off cotton tee-shirt embossed with a name, event or date that leaves it out of date on the following day.
Many of these do not even get a second life as rags.
The fashion industry can lead the way here. Choosing to use natural fibres increases the need for the process of photosynthesis to produce materials that can all go back into the earth (after multiple wears and uses) to complete the circular economy. Hydrocarbon-based fabrics all start with an energy source, so just because you ride a bicycle does not mean that you do not use oil.
It is now suggested that a big proportion of the plastic in our oceans comes from the microfibers that wash out of garments made from polyester-style fabrics.
They make their way into our oceans to pollute them with plastic that ends up in long-living marine life that can accumulate huge amounts of this over their lifetimes.
Do we still need to have such a reliance on plastic across the food and drinks industry?
Clothing from nature
A significant proportion of modern clothing is made of synthetic fibres while some natural fibres like wool are virtually worthless. Wool is a natural, compostable and easily renewable fibre for fabric production but its merits are being ignored by those who tell farmers what they should do.
The best way to influence farm practice is through price and profitability.
Then look at the shoes we wear. More and more, we see synthetic materials being used to replace the natural products – partly fashion and partly cost. In general, shoes not made from leather or natural fibres are laden with various incarnations of plastic – again, originating from hydrocarbons.
Leather is a by-product of animal production, a natural product that can serve many purposes and decompose at the end of its life. It was a traditional material used in shoe manufacture.
The changed face of food retail
Look at the way food retail has changed. There was a time when consumers went shopping with a basket to carry their “messages”. The food needed was picked from open trays and there was no packaging involved. But that required easy access to local shops that are now largely gone.
However, it was consumer choices that closed the small shops, not the supermarkets. Consumers followed lower prices and in doing that they put the small retailers, supplied by local farmers, out of business. After that, the large retailers put many small growers out of business.
Growers who remained had to specialise to survive. Now, a small number of potato and vegetable growers sell to individual wholesalers, with a similar story for butchers.
Produce is now hauled across the country, and back again, to get it to the outlets close to where these vegetables, and other products, used to be produced.
Buying with their eyes
Appearance, rather than taste, has come to dominate the food market. Potatoes and other vegetables are mainly purchased on appearance. This then became the focus of plant breeders who try to meet these requirements, often at the expense of taste.
Achieving appearance and uniform shape adds considerably to the cost of production. More pesticides are needed for aesthetic purposes.
We see that huge cost of destoning land – diesel, time, machinery and labour – become an essential part of the production process just to deliver appearance. And such practices are now a feature of all root vegetables and it is leading to considerable food waste.
If consumers are really interested in sustainability, they need to point the way in the decisions they make. Every purchase has a consequence. There must be greater emphasis on where food is produced and what clothing is made from. Lower-output farming systems need higher prices to be economically sustainable. The choices consumers make matter and farm households are also consumers.
Consumers, including farm families, need to buy into the requirement for sustainability if it is to become a real part of all our lives. Primary producers always respond to price signals so let production, processing and packaging requirements send a new signal down through the entire food chain.
Many of the stated ills of modern farming have been forced upon it by the indifference of consumers as to the consequences of their actions. Consumers influence farming practices, both directly and indirectly, by the purchasing decisions they make.The allegiance given to large supermarkets by consumers killed both small shops and small farmers at the same time. 
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: