Resetting the Table: Straight Talk About the Food We Grow and Eat

Resetting the Table takes a very science-based approach to looking at the pros and cons of the current food production system. It provides an objective look at the food chain without being excessively biased towards one point of view. The general conclusion is that our farming system is extremely efficient, but still has room for improvement. 

Farmers want to use as few inputs as possible. They want to continue to farm in a sustainable manner. However, they also want to maximize their yield. Large farms can take advantage of new technology that small farms do not have the scale to use. Drones, computers and satellites can all be used to help target water, fertilizer and pesticides where it is precisely needed. No till farming has proving to be a valuable "old school" way of improving farming productivity.

The science behind GMO crops is interesting. Scientific studies have overwhelmingly shown GMO crops to be safe. Activists, however, have continued to use fear an uncertainty to fight against GMOs. (The same activists will often be on the opposite side of the debate when it comes to climate change.) This anti-GMO work has led to developing companies refusing GMO crops that could be beneficial.

The author comes across as somewhat ambivalent when it comes to organic agriculture. The arbitrary nature of the rules is not necessarily best for the environment. (For example, non-biodegradable plastic is used due to restriction on other products.) For animal products, it gets even more hazy. Producers can often meet the "letter of the law" for animal welfare, without providing significant benefit. The biggest concern with organic farming is the scale. It is predominantly niche right now. Organic farming also tends to produce lower yields per acre and require more labor. There is probably not enough land available to feed the world with fully organic farming.

Eating local can also have issues. Shipping produce across the world is done in bulk and requires relatively little fuel. A farmer trucking his produce 60 miles from the farm to the farmer's market uses much more fuel per unit. The consumer, driving 5 miles to buy a few pounds of produce uses even more fuel per unit. The "local" produce can often burn more fossil fuel in transit than the long-distance produce, and this doesn't even touch the production. The distant area may be a much better location for growing certain crops. Our global supply chain has allowed us to consume more healthy foods that would not be otherwise available.

The greatest criticism is leveled at the food processors. They focus on getting people to buy more. This can be detrimental to health as well as the environment. Farmers can often receive a bad rap as they align with these processors in fighting against regulation. However, many of these regulations (such as nutrition standards) could be either neutral or positive for farmers.

What does the future hold? The green revolution has improved productivity. However, everything is not perfect. The increased productivity has enabled our current urbanized society. There have been some cases of widespread "turning back", such as Cuba after the loss of USSR support. The country was able to move towards "local organic farming" out of necessity. However, this was accompanied by a loss of productivity. At the present, it would be near impossible to "go back" to classical agriculture. However, there are still areas for improvement. We should focus on improving without throwing out the benefits.