Farming is the world’s most important career — that’s why it needs a new image
From AgFunder News: https://agfundernews.com/farming-is-the-worlds-most-important-career-thats-why-it-needs-an-image-makeover.html
"Right now the field is in the midst of profound change as advanced technologies including green chemistries, robotics, artificial intelligence, IoT, autonomous vehicles, machine learning, regenerative agriculture and biomimetics transform how farms look and function. It might seem like the stuff of science fiction, but autonomous vehicles, indoor farming and drone pollination are becoming more common throughout the sector.Looking at, and more importantly, talking about farming as a part of the tech revolution has the potential to ignite the curiosity and imagination of the next generation.millennials want meaningful careers that help make the world a better place. Often that interest is funnelled towards jobs in CleanTech, non-profits, the environment or the arts. But farming is an overlooked industry with incredible potential to help improve the world."
I tend to agree.
From Drovers: https://www.drovers.com/article/consumers-speak-sustainable-farmers-wanted
"Consumers used to want farmers to be local, healthy or safe, but a new word is topping the chart this year, according to a new global study by Cargill. In a word, consumers want farmers to be sustainable."
However the theme above related to the need to promote the technological savy of farmers was echoed in this survey:
"Although 75% of the respondents thought technologically advanced farming was a good thing, very few respondents see farmers that way today. “Technologically savvy” was one of the terms least associated with farmers."
This explains why technological advancements in agriculture that actually improve sustainability (Bt, Glyphosate resistance, finely textured beef, etc.) are often rejected when in fact it delivers much of what they are asking for.
I've written before about some of the challenges related to consumer attitudes and perceptions about agriculture. See the links below. But along the lines of all of these themes I find a common thread in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow:
"emotional attitude drives beliefs about benefits and risks and dominates conclusions over arguments."
Bad arguments and misleading intuition are driven by a number of biases mentioned in the book.
One of these biases is the 'affect heuristic' which "simplifies our lives by creating a world that is much tidier than reality. Good technologies have few costs in our imaginary world we inhabit, bad technologies have no benefits, and all decisions are easy. In the real world, of course we often face painful tradeoffs between costs and benefits."
I think this applies very well to food and agricultural technologies vs other kinds of technology.
Good Technology: Impossible Burger/Tesla
Bad Technology: Biotechnology
Easy Decisions: Meatless Monday/Ban Glyphosate
Real World Tradeoffs: U.S. beef contributes less than .5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so going meatless on Mondays (or campaigning to replace beef with alternatives) likely won't have the impact many consumers believe. We also know that glyphosate is a low toxic herbicide that in combination with biotech traits has helped enable environmentally important farming practices including reduced tillage, reduced energy use, and has helped substitute away from more toxic chemistries(link see also Hybrid Corn vs. Hybrid Cars). Banning glyphosate (or creating a risk and litigation environment effectively banning its continued use) might seem like an easy 'costless' solution but there are definitely tradeoffs.
Additionally:
"System 1 is able produce quick answers to difficult questions by substitution, creating coherence where there is none....The question that is answered is not the one that was intended, but the answer is produced quickly and may be sufficiently plausible to pass the lax and lenient review of system 2"
There definitely seems to be a coherent story among consumers (and voters/politicians) about how good technologies and farming practices (local, natural, organic, non-GMO, vegan etc.) must be sustainable and virtuous while modern (high tech) 'industrialized' technologies and practices must be destructive, risky and harmful. Further, coherence and tidyness implies those advocating a different story with any strong or weak connection to companies producing and marketing these technologies must be biased and non-credible sources regardless of their expertise or what is found in the scientific literature.
It is very difficult to battle the 'coherence' and 'tidyness' of the stories and perceptions that is formed in the minds of consumers and critics of agriculture. This is definitely an area where some food marketers and the 'free from' approach to labeling seems to be most damaging (and profitable?). To say the least, after spending more than a decade studying consumer and voter preferences in relation to food and technology in the agriculture space, I think we are only beginning to scratch the surface. Maybe we have reached a critical mass or turning point in consumer interest in these topics, but can science communication and advocacy turn the tide?
Rational Irrationality and Satter's Hierarchy of Food Needs
The 'free from' Nash Equilibrium Food Labeling Strategy
Polarized Beliefs on Controversial Science Topics
An Economic Analysis of Preferences for Genetically Engineered Foods
Voter Preferences, The Median Voter Theorem, and Systematic Policy Bias
No comments:
Post a Comment