Depolarising Food and Agriculture

Polarisations in agriculture are a reflection of the differences between mechanistic and holistic science: industrial vs. sustainable agriculture, conventional vs. organic production methods and global vs. local food sourcing. As economists, the authors take the view that there are associated costs and benefits to conflicting approaches and that this should set the stage for open debate even if the polarisations persist or new forms arise. They argue that progress means change, change means disruptions (also winners and losers, although this also depends on economic and political power), so progress can be polarising. Their position on GMOs is broadly that of the industry, claiming that they are the single most important advance in the history of agriculture. As one might expect, they are supporters of a market approach but I think they underestimate the persuasive power of advertising and the role of addictive substances in consumer 'choices'. Competition and trade bring about 'creative destruction' and economies of scale leading to industry concentration. Debate around these issues is sure to continue, but it is interesting to speculate about the extent to which competing approaches might come together in the area of sustainable intensification. We know that we need to produce more food but what forms will this intensification take?