Why? Food processing is manufacturing.
One of the definitions of capitalism is the separation of the goods-making process into more and more increasingly complex steps. It's through that increasing complexity that capital is ultimately employed to produce more goods at less cost.
The food processing industry is a perfect example of that. Where food once went directly from the farmer to the consumer, it now undergoes several phases of refinement which increase its safety, shelf-life and distribution area.
This process can only be maintained -- as many above have pointed out -- by struggling against government policies that choke off the creation and free-flow of capital.
This article is correct that our manufacturing base hasn't declined as many seem to believe, but it could represent a significantly higher percentage of GDP if we hadn't diverted so much of our capital into non-productive ventures [read government] over the past several decades.
The transition to a service-oriented economy is not inevitable.
Why? Because food processing is notoriously a captive of the growing area, especially perishable items. Before the Feds cut the water off in the fertile areas of Cal there was a lot of ag mfg employment, from Napa to Bakersfield.
Not so much now, I think.
In addition, the national defense requires a strong base in “heavy” manufacturing, and these things don’t get turned back on in a day.
I agree that the transition is not inevitable. Too bad so many policy makers swallowed that crap over the last few decades. I think you make a mistake when you call our current system “capitalism”, which to me implies optimization rather than maximization, and an enlightened self-interest. In the “corporatist” world, profits must be maximized, and in the current permissive climate on M&A those who delay getting to the loan window end up bought and broken up by those who are swift. Creditors and employees end up paying the price, and control goes more and more to managerial elites.