The view that has been popularised is simple: chemicals, fertilisers, and GMOs = bad; organics = good. Commentators such as Barber have espoused the view that sustainable food must be organic, local, and small, rather than large and industrial. This is akin to agriculture in the developing world. Farmers are organic because they cannot afford fertiliser, their food is local because of poor supply chains, and farms are small scale because they are not profitable enough to invest in any improvements. It is no coincidence that nations with food systems with these characteristics are food insecure. 

Consumers not only want food to be tasty, safe, nutritious, and affordable; they want it to come from farms that protect the natural environment, respect the welfare of animals, help sustain rural communities, and provide workers with fair conditions. An organic, local, and small food system would mean ignoring a century of science, would force farmers to work harder for less income, would give consumers fewer food choices, and the natural environment would in fact be worse off. 

At university, I went on a study tour of The Philippines, seeing how smallholder farmers operate. These farmers were extremely satisfied with the adoption of GM corn, which had improved their productivity and profitability through decreasing their use of pesticides, which had also brought about environmental benefits. One additional important outcome was that the farmers did not have to work as hard to manage their pests, so had more time to spend with their families. 

This good news about science-based farming, however, has been difficult to communicate to the developed world, where a litany of food writers, journalists, and commentators have found widespread acclaim in promoting pre-industrial alternatives. One of these food writers, Michael Pollan, said the following about the frighteningly uncritical support he has gained:

“The media has really been on our side for the most part. I know this from writing for the New York Times, where I’ve written about a lot of other topics, 

but when I wrote about food I never had to give equal time to the other side. I could say whatever I thought … so I felt like I got a free ride for a long time”.

There is a lack of understanding by the Australian public of where their food comes from, and it is in this vacuum that pseudoscience and emotional stories have filled the informational void. For example, a 2014 study of over 1,400 Australian children revealed that 92 per cent didn’t know bananas grew on plants. 

So let us give weight to the other side and recognise the advancements that have been made by agriculture which allow us to enjoy safe, affordable, and nutritious food that is the most sustainably produced in the world. Precision farming has made possible the production of more food while using less land, less water, and fewer chemicals, implying large benefits to the natural environment. 

Firstly, Australia has the highest rates of adoption of no-till farming in the world, with 84 per cent of farmers retaining stubble and protecting their soils. Australia has some of the lowest rates of nitrogen fertiliser and pesticide application in the world, with 68 per cent of farmers optimising their use so as to reduce their reliance. The sector has even reduced emissions by 20 per cent over the last 30 years. 

Australian agriculture has also had to contend with deteriorating seasonal conditions due to climate change. Gains in productivity have offset the negative effects of climate change over the past 30 years, so that actual productivity levels have still increased. For example, wheat yields under dry conditions have increased by 14 per cent since 2008 as technology and management practices have changed. 

These advancements in productivity and the greater intensity of modern agriculture have allowed Australia to shift land use into nature conservation while still producing more food. From 1970 to 2020, agricultural output increased by 104 per cent while land used by agriculture fell by 28 per cent. 

If we switched to earlier production methods to meet the market demands of today, the cultivated area for food production would have to increase enormously, leading to much greater levels of deforestation. A study in 2019, for example, calculated that if England and Wales made a switch to 100 per cent organic farming, average national crop yields would fall by 40 per cent, and greenhouse emissions would increase by 21 per cent. There would also be the implications of needing to clear more land and increase food imports to feed the population, as well as increasing food prices. This is hardly good for people or the planet. 

If we really want to continue to improve our food systems to make them more productive and better for the environment there needs to be a renewed trust and focus on science and R&D. This area continues to yield high returns, with estimates indicating that each additional $1 of investment generates a return of $7.82 for farmers. 

There also needs to be a strong movement towards outcomes-based certifications and production standards which can assist consumers to make choices that actually benefit the environment. There is a real chance to properly define regenerative agriculture and make this the science-based standard for industry to follow. This will incentivise farmers to adopt sustainable production practices, allow the industry to demonstrate its sustainability credentials to trading partners, and educate consumers on the benefits that come from science-based agricultural production. 

The post In defence of modern agriculture: is the ‘old way’ always better?  appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

This is in direct contrast to the cost of utilities, which accounted for only 3.1 per cent of household expenditure in 2020/21. However, it is the recent energy price increases which have led to acknowledging that a complete structural transformation of the sector is required, underlined by the $20 billion investment in transmission lines announced in the recent Federal Budget.

Our food and agriculture system, however, remains on the policy periphery, despite its share of household expenditure being over three times that of utilities. For example, the National Food Plan is almost a decade old and has only been gathering dust rather than guiding strategic interventions. There is no national climate change policy for agriculture. There is no sustainable funding source for biosecurity. There is no lead agency responsible for addressing problems in our food system. The list goes on.

As food is a necessity, its price and any associated increases have important implications for the welfare of society and the broader economy. Food affordability is a function of food prices and household incomes. Wage growth was 2.6 per cent over the year to June 2022, while food prices over the same period increased by 5.9 per cent (with a further increase to 9 per cent over the year to September). With food prices increasing at a faster rate than income, food is becoming more expensive and difficult for families – especially those experiencing disadvantage – to afford. The top cause of food insecurity in FoodBank’s 2022 Hunger Report was the rising cost of food and groceries.

There are also broader economic implications. As food is a necessity, it needs to be purchased regardless of income levels. Therefore, as food gets more expensive, it takes up a higher proportion of the household budget, leaving less money to spend on other more discretionary items and to save.

Food prices have not historically been a contentious issue in Australia, with an abundance of land leading to high per capita levels of food production, and deregulation resulting in both productivity gains and low prices from increased competition. Figure 1 compares the food and non-alcoholic beverage consumer price index (CPI) to the global Food Price Index compiled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It shows how food prices in Australia were immune from spikes that occurred from 2008 to 2015, and even during the beginning of the pandemic. The uptick in 2021-22, however, indicates that the situation may be changing.

Data on a more localised level is also enlightening. Figure 2 shows how local prices for food and non-alcoholic beverages have decoupled from the CPI since 2000 and continues to be at a higher price level. Ideally, we would want the opposite to occur; a resilient food and agribusiness sector which provides affordable food to consumers regardless of external shocks.

To achieve this and build on the gains already made by the sector, Australia needs a renewed National Food Plan which is evidence-based, embedded in government activities, reported against, subject to monitoring and evaluation, and clearly articulates the importance of the agricultural industry as a foundation of food security in Australia – and globally.

Guidance from Canada and the UK

Canada and the UK are two countries that have already started on this important journey, and which Australia should look to for guidance.

The Food Policy for Canada has the following overarching goal: “all people in Canada are able to access a sufficient amount of safe, nutritious and culturally diverse food. Canada’s food system is resilient and innovative, sustains our environment and supports our economy.”

This statement recognises the two sides of food security: the first part addresses consumption while the second is concerned about production levels, including environmental services.

These are two fundamental elements of the policy which should be adopted by any Australian policy. The Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council (CFPAC) provides advice on the nature of food challenges and solutions to address them while also aiming to build trust among key food system stakeholders to support the ability to collaborate across sectors. Reporting on results is a crucial way to measure and track progress towards outcomes and support evidence-based decision making.

The six long-term outcomes being tracked by the CFPAC are: vibrant communities, increased connections within food systems, improved food-related health outcomes, strong indigenous food systems, sustainable food practices and inclusive economic growth. Only one of these outcomes, however, directly addresses the goal of a ‘resilient and innovative’ production system.

As a further example of leadership in this field, the UK Government Food Strategy, released in June this year, more explicitly addresses supply issues which have implications for food production and, by extension, food security. For example, it includes a commitment of £390 million (A$695 million) to develop new farming systems through agtech and innovation, and working with the Migratory Advisory Commission to review occupation shortages in the agricultural sector.

While these two policies provide some guidance, experiences in the energy and waste sectors closer to home show the dangers of short-term planning of essential public services.

“Unfortunately, we’ve had very little action in the electricity system from the federal government in the last 10 years which means we’re not as set up as we could have been for a smoother transition.”

Amanda Mackenzie from the Climate Council

Australia has now run out of time to replace old, expensive and polluting coal-fired power plants, with the result being retail electricity prices expected to soar by up to 35 per cent as the system struggles with the energy transition and a global supply crisis.

The fragile domestic waste industry was exposed when China stopped accepting the world’s waste in 2017. This led to a complete breakdown of the system, with the double-edged sword of costs to councils and therefore ratepayers skyrocketing, and recyclable materials being sent to landfill.  

These two crises, however, have led to meaningful action. The NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap is expected to attract $32 billion of private investment into the energy sector while the National Partnerships on Recycling Infrastructure aims to fill critical infrastructure gaps in Australia’s waste management system with over $1 billion of investment. Food insecurity is increasing in Australia, and it is time to strategically invest to solve structural issues in the system rather than waiting for a crisis to occur to make significant change.

First steps to national food strategy

While meaningful action in the agricultural sector in respect of bolstering food security remains slow, there is some good news. On October 26, the Federal Minister for Agriculture referred the House Standing Committee on Agriculture to commence an inquiry into food security in Australia. Hopefully this is the first step towards the creation and implementation of a national food strategy.

There is also an inquiry happening into food production and supply by the NSW Legislative Assembly Committee on Environment and Planning. The final report was released on 1 November 2022 and the government response to this report is due on 1 May 2023. The overall findings of this inquiry were that:

• The approach to the food system is siloed and disjointed.
• Various government agencies are responsible for separate policies.
• There is no overarching government plan or strategy to address issues with food security and food supply.
• There is no lead agency that is responsible for addressing problems in our food system.

The overall recommendation to deal with these issues is that the NSW Government should develop a comprehensive Food System Plan for NSW, with clear objectives and measurable targets. It is also pleasing to see that similar to Canada’s Food Policy Advisory Council, it recommends the creation of a Food System and Security Council to implement the plan and act as a single coordinating body.

There is also the recognition of agriculture’s role in food security, with several specific recommendations targeting systemic supply issues including:

• The adoption of policies to limit the ability of major retailers to impose aesthetic standards for produce, leading to significant food waste.
• The creation of land use offices in food production regions to help businesses adapt to and benefit from the renewable energy transition.
• The requirement for consultation with experts and stakeholders from industry and regional communities to develop a long-term food workforce strategy.
• The requirement to set up a Help Harvest NSW network to help employers coordinate and promote work opportunities mapped to supply and demand cycles in specific regional areas.

While these are welcome initiatives, one noticeable gap is the need to support farmers adopting sustainable farming practices. The only action taken at this stage is on the demand side, through a sustainability labelling system for packaged food. Action already being taken by the NSW and Federal Governments in this space remains slow and disjointed.  

More needs to be done, and quickly, to ensure that sustainability is recognised as a core requirement for the food system which will lead to increased investment and coordinated action.

A National Food Plan will ensure that the difficulties faced by Australia’s primary producers and agribusinesses nationally are alleviated. The reality is that agriculture is the very foundation of food security, with important contributions to climate change, biosecurity, health and environmental sustainability. Indeed, a coordinated and considered National Food Plan will ensure the sustainable delivery of safe, healthy, affordable food – regardless of where people live or how much they earn.

If this story on the National Food Plan was of interest to you, you might like to read our feature on growing native foods with First Nations knowledge.

The post Stale National Food Plan needs refreshing appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.

Rather, the Budget chose to include important initiatives targeting structural drivers of the economy over the long-term. It will be vital that agriculture and regional Australia is a key consideration in these initiatives.

For example, the states and territories and the Federal Government will develop a $1 billion National Skills Agreement, with support targeted at priority groups and sectors. Also related to skills is a Migration Strategy aimed at identifying reforms that complement the Australian workforce. Agriculture has a myriad of workforce issues which should position it as a priority sector in these reforms.

In terms of energy, the major announcement of $20 billion to finance the upgrading of the electricity grid to connect to new renewable energy sources is a huge structural transition.

At a smaller scale, $224.3 million will go towards the deployment of 400 community batteries. There are two key implications for agriculture here: intensive industries such as dairy require consistent energy to avoid income losses from spoilage, so any reliable energy sources such as community batteries will be welcome; and as intermittent users of energy farmers can supply any excess energy they produce back to the community.

It was interesting to note that climate was mentioned throughout the budget, not just in isolation, recognising that this is an issue throughout the economy. Specifically, $1.9 billion has been provided toward dedicated support for regional industries to transition to net zero. It is important that agriculture secures a significant proportion of this funding as a hard-to-abate industry that requires assistance to reach net zero.

The Climate Change Authority has also been restored with $42.6 million of funding to restore its capability to deliver climate change advice, including setting and tracking Australia’s climate targets and policies. Again, agriculture’s role in achieving these targets and the measurement of its emissions in a robust and efficient manner should be a priority.

Generally, it seems that agriculture is one of the least prioritised portfolios by this government, evidenced by agriculture being mentioned only once in the Treasurer’s budget speech. For this to change it may not only be about new agriculture-specific investments but also about getting agriculture embedded in programs across skills, energy, climate, and other areas. To achieve this, there needs to be greater recognition of the role agriculture and food plays in the lives of everyday Australians. This is especially relevant in the current economic climate of disrupted supply chains leading to the need for more self-sufficiency, and high inflation which hurts the disadvantaged and the poor the most.

The Federal Government has recently signed up to the Global Methane Pledge. Read more here.

The post Small slice of Federal Budget pie for agriculture appeared first on The Farmer Magazine.