Much of public perception is based on marketing. That includes consumer attitudes toward crop science and conventional agricultural production.
Recent survey results show the social advantages of conventional crop production – things like improved nutrition and feeding the hungry – are less potent in the public eye. In fact, they seem to be getting lost in the marketing shuffle, at the peril of modern agriculture.
Bruce Anderson of Harris Decima, the polling company, brought survey results to last week’s Grow Canada meeting in Calgary, attended by representatives from major agricultural groups and by members of CropLife Canada, the trade association representing manufacturers and distributors of crop chemicals and plant biotechnology.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Anderson said the food market is changing, with more consumer attention paid to health and wellness. Marketers are nimble in response to health trends.
Witness the prevalence of “healthy” food words like natural, whole grain, organic, free-range and heirloom. However applicable they may be to food products, such words send the subliminal message that conventionally produced food is inferior or at least less healthy.
According to a recent Decima survey, said Anderson, 86 percent of people say they want their grocery store to stock more food that is produced without pesticides.
Well over half, 58 percent, believe genetically modified crops have helped save people from dying of hunger and 61 percent believe pest control products have done the same.
But on the other side of the coin, 55 percent think GM has caused illness in people, some of which we’re not yet aware of. About 70 percent think the same thing about pest control products.
Only 48 percent believe GM crop varieties are essential to improve yields and help feed the world’s hungry.
These are disturbing numbers, given the vast scientific developments of recent years that allow farmers to produce healthier and more bountiful crops in an economical way. It’s surprising that support for modern agriculture is so tepid.
Anderson said a partial explanation is consumer ambivalence about hunger. Barraged with news about North American obesity levels and a huge variety of food choices, the average consumer may give little credence to news about a hungry world beyond their borders.
But about 200 million people joined the ranks of the hungry within the past two years. That’s roughly six times the population of Canada. As population continues to grow, the numbers will worsen.
Yet the marketing juggernaut paints pictures of idyllic back-to-the-land peasant agriculture and a return to past agricultural practices that have no hope of satisfying world food needs.
As Anderson noted, such production can’t be thought of as bad or unhealthy. He cautions against efforts to discredit the value of organic and natural foods – because they do have value.
He notes the need for the proponents of conventional agriculture to stop touting their industrial message, about efficiency and risk mitigation and economies of scale. Instead, they must align themselves with broader consumer themes and emphasize the benefits of modern agriculture.
Essentially, consumers care about “me” and are less concerned about the “we” of the world who often go to bed hungry – a sad state of affairs indeed.
What are these broader consumer themes? This reading audience knows them well. They include improved nutrition that enhances wellness, pest control that expands food availability and the lighter environmental impact achieved through practices like zero-till and reduced pesticide use via GM crops.
It’s all part of consumer wellness. Let’s not hesitate to talk about it.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
