Somehow last month I ended up at a conference for the Health Department. I'm not sure how I even got invited but in April I received a conference flyer with a note that said there's still time to sign up! The conference was called S3 Food Symposium. S3 stood for food safety, security and sustainability. The topics covered antibiotic resistance (as discussed by the CDC. Be still my nerd heart!), insulin resistance (my thesis topic) and how to feed a population of 6 billion. This was of particular interest to me since most of the conferences I go to have talks about what to do to feed the population when it hits 10 billion and these talks are put on usually by Monsanto or Elanco. I was interested to hear what speakers outside of agriculture were saying. With a conference line up like that I had to sign up!
The conference kicked off with a farm tour of Full Belly Farm, which I consider to be the mother of CSAs in California. This could be just because they were the first one I heard of or because you often encounter them as people discuss their forays into sustainable agriculture and I now know why. Next week I'm off to visit his nephew's pasture dairy, so more on the tour and that adventure next week.
Apparently, I was so excited about the CDC that I failed to notice that the keynote speaker was National Geographic (side note: I LOVE National Geographic) discussing feeding a population of 6 billion. Rather than exposing an opinion of how we should farm and feed a growing population, National Geographic displayed images from farming across the world. It was a beautiful and enlightening presentation. National Geographic is looking at issues with feeding a population of 20 billion by 2050, both how we can accomplish it and the effects it may have on the planet. You can check out this "Future of Food" here: http://food.nationalgeographic.com/
Along with the conference packet, we got a National Geographic magazine. In "A Five Step Plan to Feed the World" but Jonathon Foley I think his observation is dead on. Unfortunately the debate over how to address the global food challenge has become polarized, pitting conventional agriculture and global commerce against local food systems and organic farms. The arguments can be fierce, and like our politics, we seem to be getting more divided rather than finding common ground. Those who favor conventional agriculture talk about how modern mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, and improved genetics can increase yields to help meet demand. And they're right. Meanwhile proponents of local and organic farms counter that the world's small farmers could increase yields plenty - and help themselves out of poverty- by adopting techniques that improve fertility without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. They're right too. But it needn't be an either-or proposition. Both approaches offer badly needed solutions; neither one gets us their alone. We would be wise to explore all of the good ideas, whether from organic and local farms or high - tech and conventional farms, and blend the best of them."
I think this is key in my search for somewhere in the middle agriculture. What we are currently doing in "big Ag"doesn't have to be all wrong. There are some great things happening in production agriculture. The thing that scares me the most is the tendency for the industry to put its head and the sand and keeping marching down the path it has always taken. The reluctance to accept new methods or consider environmental or public health concerns has long been my greatest frustration.
I spent a good amount of time discussing antibiotic resistance with the deputy director of the CDC. IT is of big concern to me that organizations outside of agriculture are saying the big changes need to be made in the way animals are raised because of concerns over anti biotic resistance and producers are saying, financially we can't. We may have the safest food supply in the world but that doesn't mean we can't do better. This goes right along with marching down the path that animal production has already established. Instead of evaluating the management practices that have required us to use high levels of antibiotics to mitigate disease brought on by confinement and over crowding, the industry chooses to keep pouring more inputs into a solution.
On a lighter note, I struggled at the beginning of this conference because due to some miscommunication with the conference manager I ended up without a room in Sacramento. I think my willingness to struggle through it brought great rewards. At this conference it felt like every time I asked a question the answer appeared. During a talk on health department regulations, I retreated to the lobby to read my National Geographic magazine. While there I noticed a large group of roughneck looking men toting Coors Light boxes, not the sort who would typically stay at a Hyatt. Later in the conference while talking to the Quality Manager from Starbucks I mentioned my odd day: how I felt like I shouldn't have been invited to this conference, but I was there and many opportunities had opened as well as I learned a great deal. I mentioned as we were standing by the elevator that I couldn't figure out though why all these men were there and as soon as I asked the question why are they here? It appeared on the back of several mens t shirts - they were all union workers. There undoubtedly for a union meeting. I feel like somehow life is telling me I'm on the right path.
"It's not just about where you're headed, its about what happens along the way."
No comments:
Post a Comment