Posted on 01/01/2015 11:50:05 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The future is always filled with uncertainty, especially for individuals involved in growing and producing safe, nutritional food for the world.
As the agriculture community, spends a great deal of time and effort in pondering the “what ifs”, consumers still sit in the driver seat.
One thing futuristic minds can agree on is the world population clock is clicking away at much quicker rate than the U.S. population. Recent estimates show a global population will not slow down its pace even after it reaches the United Nation’s projection of 9.2 billion in 2050. For now, the drop in global population is not predicted to occur until after 2100.
As more people inhibit the planet, more food will need to be produced with the same or less amount of available land. Clearly, innovation and smart approaches will be necessary for the agriculture community to accomplish the feat at hand.
Nevertheless, opinions vary across scientists, agriculture community and consumers on how to solve the future food puzzle.
Depending on perspective, some are pushing for food products that are derived from unconventional methods like meat from a test tube, pizza from 3D printer or protein bar from insect flour. While others think the answer lies in returning back to simpler food production system.
Still, when it is all's said and done, the consumer will hold the last piece of the puzzle by purchasing or not purchasing the food produced today and tomorrow.
That is exactly why Jayson Lusk, Oklahoma State University food and agriculture economists and his researchers asked U.S. consumers about the future of food in the December Food Demand Survey (FooDS).
When survey participants were asked if they would eat the future food products currently being developed by scientists, only 18.52% would eat hamburger from meat grown in the lab. Slightly more, 20.41% said they would consume pizza from a 3-D food printer and 21.11% would eat protein bar made with insect flour. Even so, approximately 80% of the partakers would not eat or do not know if they would eat the three new products (figure 1).
In food products being developed to address food safety concerns or enhance nutritional value, consumers were more open to try the new product. Over 64% of those taking the survey said they would eat rice with higher level of vitamin A. Just under half of the participants would eat an apple that does not turn brown or drink milk in carton that changed color in accordance to freshness.
Next, U.S. consumers were asked about concerns over future food and agriculture challenges.
The top concern was having affordable food for the participant and their family while inequitable distribution of food throughout the world, U.S. food imports and exports and the profitability of U.S. farmers and ranchers ranked lowest, around 8% each. Interestingly, producing enough food for the world or finding ways to prevent adverse environmental impacts only important to 11% and 10% U.S. participants (figure 2).
Finally, survey partakers were asked about future challenges facing food and agriculture. Picking from two available options, more than three-quarters of the consumers polled said adopting a more “natural” agriculture production that includes additional local, organic and unprocessed food over adopting more “technological” agricultural system would be the most effective in addressing the future food challenge.
> Depending on perspective, some are pushing for food products that are derived from unconventional methods like meat from a test tube, pizza from 3D printer or protein bar from insect flour. While others think the answer lies in returning back to simpler food production system.
But I thought turning everyone gay and death panels was the Feds plan to depopulate and take the strain off the resources. I guess massive immigration from the fastest breeding countries in the world and free amnesty for everyone might be counter-productive to that end of course.
I believe the writer mean to say inhabit. Otherwise, it sounds like a Freudian slip from a eugenicist!
Before resorting to 3D-printed food, I’d really like to think folks would turn to putting in a small garden. But, I guess it’s perishable knowledge with each passing generation. Plus, with two income households, I guess they don’t think they have the time to tend to it.
Two to four 4’x 8’ raised beds can produce a lot of food, relatively cheap and easy. Helps keep some money at home instead of the grocery and solves part of the food availability problem.
I’d rather see the tech developed to make growing a small plot easier.
Obviously the problem here lies in the fact that the US has an immense amount of arable land versus it’s population and that makes assuming command style control over that population exceedingly difficult. To that end, in order to facilitate the overall global control structure, you need to thin out the capable in the US, while increasing the load on the agricultural food sources.
Heck, it might be necessary to actually divert a significant supply of that agricultural excess to producing something like fuel to get it off the market and open the door to manufactured, “unconventional” foods that facilitate more control once populations become dependent upon them.
I learned long ago that one of the worst tragedies of famine “relief” to Africa was to take millions off traditional farming lands and concentrate them into cities while acclimating them to foods they’d never grown and weren’t compatible with their regional agricultural practices. Those masses become essentially slaves to whichever regime or warlord rules the area and distribution of relief supplies.
“Unconventional” food source creation will essentially globalize this unless well nested within an environment of competing conventional food sources.
He who controls the Soylent Green production will control the world...
I reject the axiom of extraordinary population growth. The number of rapidly growing peoples around the world is growing smaller every year. And those still in rapid growth mode also have a sky high mortality rate.
And this doesn’t include all those people whose total numbers are shrinking.
A garden, chicken coop, pig pen, and fruit trees can fit in the back yard of most rural properties.
--- intelligent, somewhat eccentric NYC-based older couple tell how they lived well on a little farm in VT --- later moved to Maine --- while working only 4 hours a day on "bread work" and the rest of the time pursuing their other interests, whatever they may be.
Not for everyone, maybe --- but it's good for everyone if a reasonable number of our neighbors retain the age-old skills of self-sufficiency and homesteading.
We may need to be good friends with people like the Nearings, some day.
I noticed the inhibit/inhabit too, as well as other errors.
The issue of “printable food” is ridiculous. In order to “print a pizza”, or anything else, requires the ingredients or raw materials for the printer in the first place. This would be various kinds of processed, stable powder to load into the printer.
The production of the powder, and the energy required to print and cook would cost more than simply making a pizza from scratch or buying one already made. Silly concept.
Look for "inequitable distribution of food" to be a common phrase among the Left. Food is not free. It costs money to produce. Through the use of modern farm machinery, herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer, a modern US farmer can get a LOT more food out of an acre of land than a Third World subsistence farmer can. But he will have costs he MUST recoup from being able to sell his production at a profit.
The big issue will not be a shortage of food. It will be a world population with a shortage of the skills they need to earn enough to pay for their own food.
„I’m from the Soylent Corporation and I’m here to help.”
Had a discussion a few years ago with a friend who was bemoaning Chinese vitamin C.
I pointed out that a single citrus fruit daily was enough for most people, and that a couple fruit would provide all the natural vitamin C needed.
More expensive than a Wal-Mart bottle of vit C? Certainly. But if you want real vitamin C then go to the 18th century source.
We neglected to discuss where said citrus was grown and we both had white fish at a restaurant, proving once again that otherwise normal people can ignore the easiest way to stay healthy. Pay attention and eat at home. But I digress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.