Comparing models of agriculture to consequences and benefits Reflection by Sjaan van Dusseldorp

In an article together with David Walter-Toews, Tim Lang discusses the trade off of effective food production with the consequences for the environment. He mentions how the Input-Output model of farming has been promoted as effective in keeping up with growing populations. However Lang points out that this form of farming while promoted as positive actually effects the environment and health quite severely. Some of the consequences mentioned are widespread threat and extinction to animal species and increasingly serious food disorders among millions of people. An interesting consequence of a quantitative production of food is the increase in waterborn and food-born diseases in western countries. Although these cases are often painted by western authorities as people being unsanitary in fact about 76 million Americans come down with food poisoning every year. The input-output model of agriculture weighs the input such as labour and yield against the market value of the resulting product. Notably Lang and Walter-Toews mention how science plays a significant role in promoting effective farming sometimes regardless of the additional hazards. They contrast the input-output model with the complex farming model. An explanation of what a complex farming model entails is not specified Walter-Toews & Lang however an earlier research by D. J. Pannell in 1999 defines complex agriculture as sustainable agriculture that should mimic natural ecosystems. It should be stressed that both Water-Toews & Lang and D. J. Pannell discuss the possibilities and benefits of such a model and not the current existence of a widespread complex model of agriculture. Naturally for sustainable agriculture there are socio-economic challenges. This is the main reason why the Input-Output model is so popular. According to Walter-Toews & Lang the simple model produces quantity rather than quality and the model is promoted by the thought that lack of food is the main determent of (ill) health. Of course this is true to a certain extent because too much food can also result in obesity and ill health. The Input-Output model continues to have a strong public policy due to its economic benefits. Although in the last decade since the article of Walter-Toews & Lang in 2000 there has been an increase in the part of consumer-friendly, green, organic and ecologically-friendly products which often have components of the Complex model of agriculture. These labels have become popular on food products, though it is questionable whether this is not a continuous public policy ploy to maintain the dominant Input-Output model while keeping up with the environmental and health concerned trend. In an article by Parra-Lopz et al in 2008 a public policy on sustainable agriculture discussed and planned. Unfortunately since the article of Walter-Toews & Lang the (political) discussions

to change to a complex form of agriculture have not turned into reality. Currently science and its controlled laboratory conditions do not account for the holistic socio-ecological reality. The argumentation to bring widespread sustainable agriculture on the food policy agenda has to be technological sustainability, economic efficiency, and environmental and health benefits. ParraLopz et al use the example of the Netherlands were sustainable agriculture is stimulated by governmental subsidies. The farmers are able to cut down on fertilizers and pesticides to (re)create botanical diversity on grasslands. They also discuss negative incentives such as taxes to decrease the negative results of the Input-Output model of agriculture. To further stimulate the popularity of sustainable agriculture Parra-Lopz et al also mention education and technology transfer as a tool of public policy, resulting in landholders becoming aware of ways to implement improved land management options that are promoted by environmental managers. This article stresses the importance of social interest and the willingness of citizens above all to invest in positive incentives such as agricultural subsidies; it is these incentives that will motivate the farming industry. It is not only important to convince the farmers but it is the most important to convince the consumer who eventually supplies the funding. It should be noted that since the economic crisis in Europe, serious budget cuts have been made within the Dutch government on the agriculture sector, more specifically on the subsidies for farmers. This reflects the priority of a sustainable food industry on the political agenda. Although sustainable farming is a valuable goal to pursue it has continued to remain a discussion and not a practice. Despite motivating examples such as Dutch farming subsidies for environmentally friendly farming, economic and consumer motivation still plays to much of a role. Until the consumer is interesting and willing to pay more money for good (read environmentally friendly and healthy) food the Input-Output model which defines the western industry is most likely to remain firmly implemented in public policy.

References: Walter-Toews, D. & Lang, T. (2000) A New Conceptual Base for Food and Agriculture Policy: the emerging model of links between agriculture, food, health, environment and society. Global Change and Human Health, Vol 1. (2) 116-130 Pannell, D. J. (1999) Social and Economic Challenges in the Development of Complex Farming Systems. Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Australia Parra-Lopz, C., Groot, J. C. J., Carmona-Torres, C., Rossing, W. A. H. (2008) An Intergrated Approach for Ex-Ante Evaluation of Public Policies for Sustainable Agriculture at Landscape Level. Department of Agriculture Economics and Sociology, Analusion Institute of Agriculture Research and Training, Spain.