Sustain (verb) 1. To keep up; keep going; maintain; prolong. 2. To supply with food, provisions, etc. 3. To hold up, support. 4. To bear, endure. 5. To suffer, experience. 6. To allow, admit; favour.
Sustainability (noun) 1. The ability to be sustained. 2. The quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources. 3. Able to last or continue for a long time.
Farmers and ranchers, the people who deal in sustenance, hear a lot about sustainability these days.
Various food companies and fast food restaurant chains have generated their own definitions, mostly with the intention of imposing them upon food producers.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
The dictionary shows a number of possible applications, but it is difficult to determine what sustainability really means in the context of basic agricultural production.
Century farms and ranches have surely demonstrated they are sustainable. Were it otherwise, they would not have survived.
And as the finite resource of agricultural land continues to produce more food on the same acres, it also demonstrates sustainability. An average farmer can feed 120 people today, compared to 12 a century ago. That meets the definition of prolonging, supporting and enduring, but it did not happen without some depletion of resources. It cannot.
Farmers and ranchers are now pushing back against food companies and fast food franchises. Those companies’ imposition of specific sustainability standards implies that current farm practices are somehow lacking, that they’re not good enough, that farmers need to be educated in “the right way” to do things in order to become sustainable.
It’s insulting.
Last week, the Western Producer received a manifesto of sorts from “An Alberta Farmer.”
The letter points out deficiencies of food franchises themselves when it comes to sustainability.
It suggests, perhaps tongue in cheek but perhaps not, that farmers cannot continue to support the “unsustainable consumption and waste” of such companies and their customers and therefore cannot continue supplying them with food. It calls upon those imposing sustainability demands to clean up their own acts by not selling to those who over-consume, by not selling to those who waste food, by cleaning up the litter created by fast food packaging and by ordering only enough food that can be consumed before its expiry date.
It’s an interesting riposte.
Food companies keep farmers and ranchers in business, of course. Their purchases are vital. However, that doesn’t release them from scrutiny of the motives behind their new sustainability requirements.
Are they truly serious about sustainability, or do they simply seek to differentiate themselves so they can grow market share?
Are consumers really asking for proof of this ill-defined sustainability or does access to cheap food remain the primary driver of purchases? Farmers cannot become casualties in the battle for the minds and loyalties of consumers. When it comes to a steady supply of food, we’re all on the same side.
Instead of “educating” farmers about sustainability, food companies should put their emphasis on educating consumers about the healthy and efficient production practices already used on farms and ranches. There’s plenty to “sell” in what producers are already doing.
When it comes right down to it, would consumers rather trust a farmer or an international food company to provide food in a sustainable way? We think the answer is obvious.
