The "S" Word

Some words defy definition.  In the case of sustainability, this is particularly true.  Take a look:

From www.dictionary.com: the ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed. Not remotely useful.

Merriam Webster gets closer: of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.

Finally, there’s this definition from John Ikerd, a scholar and author from a farm background who focuses on sustainability in agriculture and economics: "capable of maintaining…productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely. Such systems... must be resource-conserving, socially supportive, commercially competitive, and environmentally sound."

Most modern farmers would agree that the final definition is what they strive for each and every day.  Most consumers would agree that this is what they want from their food systems.  Where farmer and consumer differ is the path that agriculture should take to get there. These days, sustainability is thrown around constantly, used as a marketing tool to promote the latest in dietary fads.  Advertising Age named it one of the “jargoniest jargon words” in 2010, used mostly for a “…squishy, feel-good catchall for doing the right thing. Used properly, it describes practices through which the global economy can grow without creating a fatal drain on resources. It’s not synonymous with ‘green.’ Is organic agriculture sustainable, for example, if more of the world would starve through its universal application?”

It’s this last comment that intrigues me.  Our consumers want green, organic, sustainable, insert-buzzword-of-the-day here in their food choices.  The thing is, the consumer definitions of those words equate to “old-fashioned” in modern agriculture. The people who eat what we produce lust after the bucolic image of a farmer in overalls, milking a cow by hand, and selling his produce at the local market.  The problem is that if we farmed today the way we did 100 years ago, we’d be staring starvation and resource ruination in the face.

The beauty of our modern society is that it’s allowed people to specialize, and this includes agriculture.  We have experts in health care, in education, in finance.  Agriculture is no different.  We farm on large scales to feed large numbers of people.  With scale have come technological advancements.  For example, we know from our forbearers’ experience with the Dust Bowl that total tillage is not best for land, environment, or people.  We now employ no-till and strip-till practices to protect soil integrity.   

With the use of biotechnology, our yields have increased exponentially, and we are better able to control weeds and pests with much-reduced usage of chemical tools.We know all this. Farmers understand better than anyone that caring properly for our land and water and other resources is the best way to protect our livelihoods. 

However, because our consumers aren’t on the farm with us every day, and are bombarded with misleading ad campaigns, they can sometimes perceive our pursuit of sustainability as more harmful to the environment than the old-fashioned way of farming. 

It’s up to us to engage our nonfarming family members, friends, and acquaintances in productive conversation that doesn’t put up a wall.Agriculture has made leaps and bounds in sustainability over the last century, and will continue to do so as long as our consumers understand why we use those tools.  We must be able to use the skills and technologies we have discovered, and these days, with our consumers being much more brazen in joining the conversations surrounding food production, that means sharing what we do, why we do it, and especially, how we do it.

Consumers and agriculturists shouldn’t be wary of one another, but rather work together to understand that the ideology of sustainability from both consumer and agricultural perspectives is really similarly rooted in a desire for healthful and affordable food, and stewardship of our planet.