Feeding the Future

America has long been known as the land of plenty, and when compared to many nations of the world, the adage rings true. “We’re used to having ample food—not running out of food, and we take for granted that our food will be safe,” said Elizabeth Brewster, Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) FutureFood 2050 managing editor. Contrast that with underdeveloped countries where a third to half the food grown spoils in the field.

Both the overabundance of food and inability to get food to the people lead to waste. “And that is where technology plays a part,” Brewster said. “A lot of food gets wasted today. To stop that, you need some sort of technology. The problem isn’t production, it’s getting it to the people in a way that’s safe and useful.”

It is just such global issues that led to IFT’s creation of FutureFood 2050. Extremists tend to dominate conversations about the evils or infallibility of modern production. “Whoever is the loudest and says the craziest thing gets the most attention,” she said. For this reason, the FutureFood 2050 project focused on finding a middle ground between the extremes and promoting discussion based on science and facts instead of on people’s emotions.

A similar initiative was developed by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Alliance to Feed the Future, with a mission to raise awareness and improve understanding of the benefits and necessity of modern food production and technology to meet global demand. The industry has been on the defense so much, it has forgotten the positive aspects of modern food systems, said IFIC and Foundation President and CEO David Schmidt.

In the land of plenty, we like to think that everyone can go to the farmers’ market and get local food. “That’s a nice idea, but it’s not practical,” Brewster said. When you consider the amount of the world’s food that spoils in the field, is eaten or destroyed by insects, is blighted by post-harvest losses, or simply is not able to reach people, “there is an obvious need for food technology.”

In fact, 842 million people in the world (one in eight) suffer from chronic hunger, said Margaret Enis Spears, director of the Office of Markets, Partnerships and Innovation, USAid Bureau for Food Security. It is not so much a matter of productivity as it is producing nutritious food and getting it to the populations, she said. “Look at Africa, there is a big gap between what is being produced and its potential.”

To address this, the Feed the Future Initiative was developed in 2009 with a goal to have a lasting impact to reduce the number of undernourished and ensure the availability of a safe, quality food supply. A key focus is on the use of irrigation, fertilizers, and hybrid seeds that allow for higher yields—such as those that are widely accepted and used in developed countries. Feed the Future works with local and international public and private partnerships to implement and train on techniques and technologies to improve food quality and safety, particularly through enhanced processing capabilities to extend shelf life, increase nutritional value, improve post-harvest handling.
 

Sustainability.

Whether implementing technologies in underdeveloped areas or one’s own manufacturing plant, industry needs to keep sustainability in mind. “In trying to solve one problem, you can’t create another,” Spears said. If a technology or other process is environmentally detrimental, you may have short-term gain, but it won’t be able to be sustained long-term.

Consumers want manufacturers to be sustainable, but there is a lot of confusion about what sustainability means, Schmidt said. While this could be seen as a negative, it actually gives the industry an opportunity to define and explain what sustainability means and what it is doing to further it. Overall, he said, the goal of a sustainable initiative should be to produce healthful, quality food, but in ways that retain the availability for future generations. Modern food technologies fit into this because, he said, “When you talk in terms of sustainability and the benefits of sustainability, feeding more people with less land is a top benefit of technology.”

Additionally, there is a growing movement toward all-natural foods from farm to fork. However, Brewster said, “people tend to forget that not everything natural is good. E. coli is natural. Salmonella is natural. We need some processing to take care of that.”
 

Industry’s Role.

“The industry needs to get out in front of things more instead of assuming the facts will speak for themselves,” Brewster said. Too often, it seems that manufacturers think that because they know an additive, ingredient, or technology is beneficial, the consumer won’t care. But when the consumers find out, they may feel as though the manufacturer was hiding something—and in many cases, there are plenty of counter-activists talking about why the additive, ingredient, or technology is harmful instead. “People latch onto things even if it is not backed by science,” Brewster said. “And food is personal; you’re putting it in your body.”

Thus, a manufacturer should be upfront and transparent, stating risks and benefits of an additive, ingredient, or technology; then noting that there may be some drawbacks, and explaining why it feels the benefit outweighs the risk. Let people know what is going on early on, and any activist backlash will be greatly diffused. Brewster noted GMO labeling as an example. It’s a little too late to lead in this area, because GMOs are already perceived as negative, she said. But if it had been explained up front; if there had been more transparency, it’s unlikely the industry would be facing the extent of criticism it sees today.

The terms used to describe technologies also can have an impact. “We have to quit using terms like GMO,” Schmidt said. “GMO is an activist term that is scientifically misleading. It’s not even accepted by FDA.” Instead, he recommends that we use the word bioengineered, discuss food production aspects as biotechnology, and focus on individual uses rather than lumping them all together. “Technology is neutral; let’s talk about the benefits of each individual case not whether or not to use it in general.”

Manufacturers also need to be careful about backing down to pressure. “The more you agree to quit using a certain technology or certain food, the more you are putting yourself in a box—which you may regret in the long term,” Schmidt said.

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.