Sustainability in the Food Industry E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Serie: Institute of Food Technologists Series
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 377

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2009

Beschreibung

Sustainability is beginning to transform the food industry with environmental, economic and social factors being considered, evaluated and implemented throughout the supply chain like never before. Sustainability in the Food Industry defines sustainability with a comprehensive review of the industry's current approach to balancing environmental, economic and social considerations throughout the supply chain. In addition, tools and information are provided to enhance future progress. To achieve this, the book combines technical research summaries, case studies and marketing information. Coverage includes sustainability as it relates to: agricultural practices, food processing, distribution, waste management, packaging, life cycle analysis, food safety and health, environmental labeling, consumer insight and market demand, product development, practices in food manufacturing companies, food retailing and food service. An international group of authors covers the information from a global perspective. Sustainability in the Food Industry offers an overview of sustainable sources of impact and improvement, how they relate to the key sectors of the food industry and how programs may be implemented for further improvement.

Leseprobe

Contents

Contributors

Introduction

References

Chapter 1 Agriculture

Introduction: Human Food Supply Is a Continuing Challenge

Technical Research in Agriculture

Legislation and Supports

Consequences of Current Approaches and Paths Forward

References

Chapter 2 Food Processing and Food Waste

Introduction

Waste

Energy Use

Summary

Case Studies

References

Chapter 3 Distribution

Introduction

International Distribution

National Distribution

Regional/Local Food Distribution

Summary

References

Chapter 4 Packaging

Introduction

Environmental Considerations of Food Packaging

Design of Sustainable Packaging

Conclusions

References

Chapter 5 Life Cycle Assessment across the Food Supply Chain

Introduction

Comparison of Environmental Impact of the Agricultural Production of Food Products

Comparison of Environmental Impact of Different Foods

Environmental Impacts of Different Meals

How Unilever Uses Sustainability Tools and Metrics

Conclusions

References

Chapter 6 Social Aspects of the Food Supply Chain

Food Safety, Health, and Nutrition

Farmer and Market Effects

Conclusions

References

Chapter 7 Ecolabeling and Consumer Interest in Sustainable Products

Introduction

Consumer Insight and Green Marketing

The Role of Certification

Organic Food

Fairtrade Foods

Other Sustainable Foods

Conclusions

References

Chapter 8 Sustainability in Food and Beverage Manufacturing Companies

Introduction

Sierra Nevada Brewing Company: A Focus on Minimizing Direct Impacts

Unilever: A Focus on Minimizing Indirect Impacts

Kraft Foods: A Focus on How to Begin to Implement Sustainability across the Organization

References

Chapter 9 Sustainability in Food Retailing

Introduction

Life Cycle Impacts of Food Retailing

What Retailers Are Doing

Conclusions

References

Chapter 10 Sustainability in Food Service

Introduction

Procurement

Storage

Preparation and Service

Implementing Sustainable Operations

Conclusions

References

Chapter 11 Sustainability Principles and Sustainable Innovation for Food Products

Introduction

Sustainable Product Development and Innovation

Conclusions

References

Index

The IFT Press series reflects the mission of the Institute of Food Technologists — to advance the science of food contributing to healthier people everywhere. Developed in partnership with Wiley-Blackwell, IFT Press books serve as leading-edge handbooks for industrial application and reference and as essential texts for academic programs. Crafted through rigorous peer review and meticulous research, IFT Press publications represent the latest, most significant resources available to food scientists and related agriculture professionals worldwide.

Founded in 1939, the Institute of Food Technologists is a nonprofit scientific society with 22,000 individual members working in food science, food technology, and related professions in industry, academia, and government. IFT serves as a conduit for multidisciplinary science thought leadership, championing the use of sound science across the food value chain through knowledge sharing, education, and advocacy.

IFT Book Communications Committee

Barry G. Swanson

Syed S.H. Rizvi

Joseph H. Hotchkiss

Christopher J. Doona

William C. Haines

Ruth M. Patrick

Mark Barrett

John Lillard

Karen Nachay

IFT Press Editorial Advisory Board

Malcolm C. Bourne

Fergus M. Clydesdale

Dietrich Knorr

Theodore P. Labuza

Thomas J. Montville

S. Suzanne Nielsen

Martin R. Okos

Michael W. Pariza

Barbara J. Petersen

David S. Reid

Sam Saguy

Herbert Stone

Kenneth R. Swartzel

Cheryl J. Baldwin, PhD, is Vice President of Science and Standards for Green Seal, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding the environment by transforming the marketplace by promoting the manufacture, purchase, and use of environmental standards and providing independent certification to those standards. Previously, Dr Baldwin served as Program Leader and Senior Research Scientist at Kraft Foods, Glenview, IL.

Edition first published 2009

© 2009 Wiley-Blackwell and the Institute of Food Technologists

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Editorial Office

2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014–8300, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book, please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Blackwell Publishing, provided that the base fee is paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payments has been arranged. The fee codes for users of the Transactional Reporting Service are ISBN-13: 978-0-8138-0846-8/2009.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Sustainability in the food industry/[edited by] Cheryl Baldwin. – 1st ed.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8138-0846-8 (hardback: alk. paper)

1. Food industry and trade. 2. Food supply. 3. Sustainable agriculture. I. Baldwin, Cheryl.

HD9000.5.S828 2009

338.1–dc22

2008040237

Titles in the IFT Press series

Accelerating New Food Product Design and Development (Jacqueline H. Beckley, Elizabeth J. Topp, M. Michele Foley, J.C. Huang, and Witoon Prinyawiwatkul)Advances in Dairy Ingredients (Geoffrey W. Smithers and Mary Ann Augustin)Biofilms in the Food Environment (Hans P. Blaschek, Hua H. Wang, and Meredith E. Agle)Calorimetry and Food Process Design (Gönül Kaletunç)Food Ingredients for the Global Market (Yao-Wen Huang and Claire L. Kruger)Food Irradiation Research and Technology (Christopher H. Sommers and Xuetong Fan)Food Laws, Regulations and Labeling (Joseph D. Eifert)Food Risk and Crisis Communication (Anthony O. Flood and Christine M. Bruhn)Foodborne Pathogens in the Food Processing Environment: Sources, Detection and Control (Sadhana Ravishankar and Vijay K. Juneja)Functional Proteins and Peptides (Yoshinori Mine, Richard K. Owusu-Apenten, and Bo Jiang)High Pressure Processing of Foods (Christopher J. Doona and Florence E. Feeherry)Hydrocolloids in Food Processing (Thomas R. Laaman)Microbial Safety of Fresh Produce: Challenges, Perspectives and Strategies (Xuetong Fan, Brendan A. Niemira, Christopher J. Doona, Florence E. Feeherry, and Robert B. Gravani)Microbiology and Technology of Fermented Foods (Robert W. Hutkins)Multivariate and Probabilistic Analyses of Sensory Science Problems (Jean-François Meullenet, Rui Xiong, and Christopher J. Findlay)Nondestructive Testing of Food Quality (Joseph Irudayaraj and Christoph Reh)Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Food Systems (Hongda Chen)Nonthermal Processing Technologies for Food (HowardQ. Zhang, GustavoV. Barbosa-Cànovas, V.M. Balasubramaniam, Editors; C. Patrick Dunne, Daniel F. Farkas, James T.C. Yuan, Associate Editors)Nutraceuticals, Glycemic Health and Type 2 Diabetes (Vijai K. Pasupuleti and James W. Anderson)Packaging for Nonthermal Processing of Food (J.H. Han)Preharvest and Postharvest Food Safety: Contemporary Issues and Future Directions (Ross C. Beier, Suresh D. Pillai, and Timothy D. Phillips, Editors; Richard L. Ziprin, Associate Editor)Processing and Nutrition of Fats and Oils (Ernesto M. Hernandez and Afaf Kamal-Eldin)Processing Organic Foods for the Global Market (Gwendolyn V. Wyard, Anne Plotto, Jessica Walden, and Kathryn Schuett)Regulation of Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals: A Global Perspective (Clare M. Hasler)Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development (Howard R. Moskowitz, Jacqueline H. Beckley, and Anna V.A. Resurreccion)Sustainability in the Food Industry (Cheryl J. Baldwin)Water Activity in Foods: Fundamentals and Applications (GustavoV.Barbosa-Cànovas, Anthony J. Fontana, Jr, Shelly J. Schmidt, and Theodore P. Labuza)Whey Processing, Functionality and Health Benefits (Charles I. Onwulata and Peter J. Huth)

Contributors

Cheryl Baldwin (Introduction, Chapters 7, 9, and 11)

Green Seal, Inc., Washington, DC 20036

Aaron L. Brody (Chapter 4)

Packaging/Brody Inc. Duluth, GA 30095

Jeff Chahley (Chapter 8)

Kraft Foods, Northfield, IL 60093

Ben Champion (Chapter 3)

Department of Geography, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506

Cheri Chastain (Chapter 8)

Sustainability Coordinator, Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Chico, CA 95928

Tim Crosby (Chapter 3)

Growing Washington, Edmonds, WA 98020

Randi Dalgaard (Chapter 5)

Department of Agroecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, Tjele, Denmark

Tran Thi My Dieu (Chapter 2)

Department of Environmental Technology and Management, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Charles Francis (Chapters 1 and 6)

Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583

Holly Givens (Chapter 7)

Organic Trade Association, Washington, DC 20008

Niels Halberg (Chapter 5)

DanishResearchCentreforOrganicFoodandFarmingDARCOF,Tjele, Denmark

Barbara Haumann (Chapter 7)

Organic Trade Association, Washington, DC 20008

John E. Hermansen (Chapter 5)

Department of Agroecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, Tjele, Denmark

Sara Kaplan (Chapter 3)

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Lisbeth Mogensen (Chapter 5)

Department of Agroecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, Tjele, Denmark

Rich Pirog (Chapter 3)

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Rebecca Rasmussen (Chapter 3)

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Amarjit Sahota (Chapter 7)

Organic Monitor, London, United Kingdom

Kantha Shelke (Chapter 6)

Corvus Blue, Chicago, IL 60610

B. Gail Smith (Chapters 5 and 8)

Sustainable Agriculture Scientist, Unilever Research, United Kingdom

John Turenne (Chapter 10)

Sustainable Food Systems, Wallingford, CT 06492

J.C. Vis (Chapters 5 and 8)

Sustainable Agriculture Programme Director, Unilever N.V., the Netherlands

Justin Van Wart (Chapters 1 and 6)

Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583

Nana T. Wilberforce (Chapter 11)

Green Seal, Inc. Washington, DC 20036

INTRODUCTION

Cheryl Baldwin

The food supply chain affects every individual on the planet. As a result, sustainable development of the food supply chain is imperative. Sustainable development has been defined as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (WBCSD, 2000). The food supply chain, also called the food industry or food system, includes aspects from production of the food, processing, distribution, consumer purchase, consumer use, and end of life. A sustainable food supply would then mean that food is produced and consumed in a way that supports the well-being of generations.

The current food supply has demonstrated impacts that make it unsus tainable. Such impacts include overreliance on inputs for food production such as high-intensity animal production and production of produce out of season. For example, the supply chain contributes significantly to climate change, with agricultural production alone responsible for 17–32% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Bellarby et al., 2008). It has been estimated that the food system consumes close to 16% of the total energy use in the United States (Hendrickson, 1996). Food processing also constitutes 25% of all water consumption worldwide and 50–80% of all water used in industrial countries (Okos). Further, there remains widespread malnutrition, both under- and over-nutrition. As a result, the key sustainability considerations for the food supply include energy, waste, water, air, climate, biodiversity, food quality, food quantity,foodprice,foodsafety,employment,andemployeewelfare(Kramer and Meeusen, 2003). These issues, along with others, are discussed in detail in the chapters of this book.

The food industry has the capability to provide safe, nutritious, and flavorful foods to a range of consumers. Agricultural production can provide a range of commodities for nourishment. The processing of commodities can provide a means to preserve foods for appropriate distribution and storage and also may reduce total waste by preparing commodities consumption. Distribution then can enable the food to reach those who need it.

The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food in the United Kingdom developed the following key principles for a sustainable food chain (DEFRA, 2006):

Produce safe, healthy products in response to market demands, and ensure that all consumers have access to nutritious food and to accurate information about food products.Support the viability and diversity of rural and urban economies and communities.Enable viable livelihoods to be made from sustainable land management, both through the market and through the payments for public benefits.Respect and operate within the biological limits of natural resources (especially soil, water, and biodiversity).Achieve consistently high standards of environmental performance by reducing energy consumption, minimizing resource inputs, and using renewable energy wherever possible.Ensure a safe and hygienic working environment and high social welfare and training for all employees involved in the food chain.Achieve consistently high standards of animal health and welfare.Sustain the resource available for growing food and supplying other public benefits over time, except where alternative land uses are essential to meet other needs of society.

As a result, agricultural production should be focused on providing the most nutritionally dense options with the least intensity. Food processors and manufacturers need to include sustainable actions like waste reduction and recovery, composting, recycling, and processing with minimal water and energy use. Distribution should be as efficient as possible.

The benefits of sustainable practices are important for the global social and environmental benefits mentioned, but the World Business Council for Sustainable Development has also found that businesses that incorporate sustainable practices have had greater financial success (WBCSD, 2002). Benefits of sustainable practices include lower production costs, improved product function and quality, increased market share, improved environmental performance, improved relationships with stakeholders, and lower risks.

Consumer interest in sustainable food has grown. This interest has been attributed to the desire to improve one’s personal and family health and safety (Sloan, 2007). Environmental reasons have remained a secondary benefit, and in many ways unknown to consumers. For example, in a survey conducted by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in 2007, 88% of respondents perceived local and regional food systems to be somewhat safe or very safe and had purchase preferences for such food, compared to only 12% perceiving global foods as safe (Pirog and Larson, 2007). The survey also showed that the respondents, however, did not know that airplane transport of food emitted more greenhouse gases than trucks (on a per pound basis of product transported) (Pirog and Larson, 2007).

The impacts of an unsustainable food supply on health and food safety are discussed in this book, and go well beyond the average consumers’ knowledge. This indicates that as consumers learn more, their interest in sustainable food will only increase. Further, it is already evident that environmental concerns are moving higher in priority to many consumers.

This book will evaluate the sustainability of each of the main supply chain components of the food industry. There will be emphasis on environmental considerations given its significance and need for progress. Finally, the last chapter (Chapter 11) will bring the discussion from all the chapters/supply chain components together to outline sustainability principles for food and beverage products, including strategies on how to develop/innovate more sustainable products.

References

Bellarby,J.,B.Foereid,A.Hastings,andP.Smith.2008.CoolFarming:ClimateImpacts of Agriculture and Mitigation Potential. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Greenpeace.

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2006. Food Industry Sustainability Strategy. London, UK: DEFRA.

Hendrickson, J. 1996. Energy Use in the U.S. Food System: A Summary of ExistingResearch and Analysis. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems.

Kramer, K., and M. Meeusen. 2003. “Sustainability in the agrofood sector.” In: Life cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector: Proceeding from the 4th International Conference, October 6–8, 2003, Bygholm, Denmark.

Okos, M. Developing Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Food Processing Systems. Available from https://engineering.purdue.edu/ABE/Research/research95/okos.sohn.96.whtml.AccessedApril 5, 2008.

Pirog, R., and A. Larson. 2007. Consumer Perceptions of the Safety, Health, and Environmental Impact of Various Scales and Geographic Origin of Food Supply Chains. Ames, IA: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. September 2007.

Sloan, E. 2007. New shades of green. Food Technol. 61(12):16.

WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2002. The Business Case for Sustainable Development. Available from http://www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/business-case.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2008.

Chapter 1

Agriculture

Charles Francis and Justin Van Wart

Introduction: Human Food Supply Is a Continuing Challenge

Development of a sustainable agriculture and food system must be an essential part of our long-term economic and environmental planning. Adequate food and a livable environment are both critical to the longterm survival of our species.

Research and development over the past century have provided an impressive and even unexpected surge in production of food across the prime agricultural regions, especially those with potential for irrigation. Adding to these gains have been the extraordinary contributions of plant breeding to high-input production systems and the corresponding advances in fertility and pest management. The fruits of the Green Revolution and the impacts of the International Agricultural Research Centers provide evidence of what a focused public domain program can achieve. At the same time, such an acceleration in food production has come at a price. As with any biological population, human numbers have increased in response to available food and other resources. Human population is likely to reach the current projection of 9.6 billion before it is predicted to level and drop (Brown, 2008). The increasing human population and demands for food, fuel, and other products that depend on nonrenewable natural resources have put an unprecedented pressure on the global life-support system (Tilman et al., 2002). Human activities currently exploit over 40% of total net primary productivity captured by photosynthesis, leaving just over half for the maintenance of all other species.

Perhaps the fragility of the global ecosystem is best illustrated by the current rate of extinction of plant and animal species. Economist and author, Lester Brown, states that we are presently in the midst of the sixth major extinction event in the earth’s history, the last of which occurred 65 million years ago, wiped out the dinosaurs, and was likely the result of an asteroid hitting the planet (Brown, 2008). Today’s problem is the first such event that is almost entirely a result of human activity and our destruction of habitat. One of the immediate economic and food system impacts is the disappearance of fish and collapse of the fishing industry, with 75% of commercial fish species being removed at unsustainable rates (FAO, 2007). More far-reaching consequences of these human activities include the losses of life-sustaining ecosystem-support services (Daily,1996). We must acknowledge that our expansion in human population and increase in food production do come at a cost, often one that we are unable to calculate.

Thus, we appear to be reaching a tipping point in the balance between exploitation of natural resources and satisfaction of human wants and needs. Brown’s Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (Brown, 2008), provides an overview of current challenges as well as potential solutions at the global scale. Also, the recent book Developing and Extending Sustainable Agriculture: A New Social Contract (Francis et al., 2006) provides an up-to-date catalog of sustainable practices in agriculture, and serves as another prime resource for this chapter.

Technical Research in Agriculture

The agricultural advances during the past century were truly spectacular. While human population increased from 3 to 6 billion people between 1960 and 2000, food grain production increased by a factor of three, easily keeping up with population in aggregate and solving hunger problems in some areas (Kang and Priyadarshan, 2007). The advances in production contributed to nutrition and better health in many areas, yet persistent poverty, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, continues to prevent food from reaching many who most need this basic resource. The inequities in distribution of food appear to be growing today, along with a skewing of the economic situation between rich and poor, North and South, all in the face of food surplus in favored areas. The current move toward biofuels, especially ethanol from maize and rapeseed in the North and from sugarcane and oil palm in the south, provides another challenge to food production and availability.

The increases in food production have been due in large part to expansion of irrigated farmlands and also to increased human productivity, based on mechanization that made the farming work load lighter. This process liberated labor to pursue other activities in the later part of the industrial revolution. Of special importance is the series of genetic advances in our major food crops that has sparked the Green Revolution, uniquely impacting rice and wheat production in Asia and Latin America and maize production in temperate regions. These advances have been coupled with large increases in chemical fertilizer application and use of chemical pesticides. The combination of these components in well-designed and efficient cropping systems has produced synergisms among the new technologies to increase food production.

Genetic improvement of crop varieties has been a continuous process since the first people settled in permanent communities and began to extract the most desirable plants from their nearby environment (Plucknett and Smith, 1986). They saved seed of cereals and pulses and propagated cuttings from trees and vines that proved most desirable for their home diets. Often they were plants with the largest edible seeds, those that held tightly in the head or ear or pod rather than shattering and dispersing, and those with the best cooking qualities. Most of the genetic progress in improving yields of crop plants was achieved by women who found these early selections, while men were off hunting, and we have continued to fine-tune their efforts over the past centuries. Rediscovery of Mendel’s principles of genetics was a key to understanding the mechanisms of crossing and development of hybrid maize. Genetic selection techniques for important self-pollinated cereals such as wheat and rice were equally successful. The contributions of the International Agricultural Research Centers and their partners in national programs were central to genetic progress in major crops during the last half of the twentieth century. Plants provide three-quarters of the calories and protein to fuel human diets, and it is valuable to explore the advances in the three major cereals, since together they contribute over half of all the energy in our food on a global basis.

Advances in Wheat

Wheat is one of our most important cereals for human consumption (see Figure 1.1, FAS, 2008), with global annual production of nearly 600 million tons (Singh and Trethowan, 2007). Half of the production is in developing countries, and much of the genetic progress can be attributed to improving adaptation to a range of water-limiting conditions through shuttle breeding carried out by the International Center for Improvement of Maize and Wheat in Mexico. Spring wheat can be grown from the equator to as far as 60° north and south latitudes and from sea level to over 3,000 m elevation. Winter wheat provides another type of adaptation to low winter temperatures and after passing through a vernalization phase can sprout early in spring and produce high yields by midsummer. Together, these wheat varieties are adapted to a wide range of ecoregions and have proved to be especially drought tolerant. Some of the highest yields have been achieved in Europe under favorable rainfall conditions, using high levels of fertilizer and growth regulators to prevent excessive vegetative growth and lodging or falling over before harvest. These systems appear to be sustainable, as long as the supply of fossil fuels, fertilizers, and chemicals needed to produce them are available. Finally, the sustainability will depend on environmental regulations and how well we are able to use these inputs without creating excessive nitrate or chemical residue loads on the environment that are detrimental to humans and other species.

Figure 1.1. World grains production, 1978–2008 (FAS, 2008).

Two of the irrigated areas where yields have increased in an impressive way are northwest Mexico where many of these new wheat varieties were developed, and in the Punjab of India and Pakistan where water has been available and double cropping with a summer cereal or pulse crop has been possible. Such systems are sustainable as long as soil fertility can be maintained, subject to the same limitations described for the cereal system in Europe and the availability of increasingly scarce irrigation water. In the case of the Punjab, water tables have been declining as much as 1 m/year due to intensive use of tube wells and irrigation for both winter and summer crops. At this rate, water soon becomes too costly to pump for agriculture.

Competition for water from other sectors is a critical factor. It requires about 1,000 tons of water to produce a ton of grain (Gleick, 2000). Even with the current abnormal rise in basic cereal grain prices, our economic productivity per unit of water is far below that of other industries, and it is also impossible to compete with communities for water needed for public supplies. The real advantage of agriculture in use of water is the potential to intercept rainfall over an extensive area, store this in the soil profile, and use it to grow crops. Once that resource is concentrated—in a stream, reservoir, or groundwater aquifer—it is more valuable to other sectors of society. Even recreational uses and maintaining habitat for wildlife species have higher values for some human societies, at least with the current adequate levels of food production in most areas of the world. This could change as food becomes scarce and water is needed to help supply this basic human need.

Advances in Rice

Rice is another important cereal grain (see Figure 1.1, FAS, 2008), also with annual global production over 400 million tons (Virmani and IlyasAhmed, 2007), and 90% grown in Asia. The crop can be grown from 35° south in Australia to 50° north in Mongolia, and from sea level to over 3,000 m elevation. Egypt and Australia have the highest levels of productivity, with average yields over 9 tons/ha. In the latter half of the past century, rice-growing area has increased almost 1.8 times, while yields per hectare have more than doubled on average, resulting in a fourfold increase in global production. Major technological advances have included breeding varieties that are insensitive to photoperiod, and thus can be planted in any month of the year where water and temperature conditions are favorable; semidwarf varieties that respond to fertilizer with more grain rather than vegetative growth; shorter maturity varieties that allow two or three crops per year if irrigation is available; and chemical nutrient and weed management to support the highly extractive practices associated with high yields and multiple crops per year.

In addition to limitations on water, one of the most bothersome issues to emerge over the last two decades with rice has been yield decline in Asia. Although a number of theories have been proposed, it now appears that nitrogen availability at the right times in the crop’s life cycle is one of the principal factors (Doberman et al., 2000). Research on this critical issue continues, since rice is such an important component of the diet throughout Asia. There have been a number of concerns, including the possibility of sub-detectable effects of soil pathogens, complex questions of nutrient availability in a continuous cultivation pattern of the same crop, and other potential soil nutrient reasons for the decline. It is essential that this problem be solved for the well-being of millions of people in Asia. The potential for solving the challenge through crop rotation is an obvious route to take, yet the suitability of these lands for rice cultivation and the continuing demand for this popular food crop are overriding reasons to find ways to make continuous cultivation sustainable, as difficult as this may be biologically.

Advances in Maize

Maize is the most important major global cereal crop in terms of total production, nearly 700 million tons annually (see Figure 1.1, FAS, 2008). This is an important cereal in much of Africa and Southeast and East Asia, far from its origin in Guatemala and southern Mexico. As the firstcross-pollinatedcroptoreceivemajorattentionfromplantbreeders, maize has become a model for plant genetic improvement and the most important cereal grain in the United States and several other temperate countries. In addition to selection for crop yield, early efforts focused on increasing protein and oil concentrations in the grain with the hope that this would not reduce grain yields (Johnson, 2007). Development of inbred lines of maize and their heterozygous crosses became the standard for study of population genetics, testing methods, and more recently marker-assisted selection and other microbial techniques. Double-cross maize hybrids (four inbred parents) and then single-cross hybrids (two inbred parents) formed the foundation of the hybrid maize industry in the United States and a model for other countries seeking high yields and wide adaptation of new genetic combinations.

In addition to the hybrids based on inbred lines, pioneering plant breeders with maize introduced population improvement and other types of varieties that could be grown and their seed saved by farmers. This concept was built on knowledge of the pollination habits of maize; 95% of the pollen fertilizing a given ear on a plant comes from another plant—we would say the crop is 95% outcrossing. Thus, 95% of the seed that comes from a variety in the field is a result of crosses with some other series of plants in that field or nearby. By mixing a population of plants with similar characteristics, including grain color and crop maturity, one can harvest seed from the “best” plants in the field and assure that the large majorities are hybrids between two parents in that same field. By starting with a relatively diverse and highly productive variety (population or synthetic variety), it is possible for the farmer to select an improved variety that will be even better for his or her specific farm conditions. It is important to do this selection of plants in the field, choosing those individuals that stand up well, have insect and pathogen tolerance, and are well adapted to the cropping system. Those farmers who select ears, after they are in storage, often have taken the largest ones in hopes that this will increase yields, only to find that these came from the latest maturing and often overly tall plants, both negative attributes not visible in the ears. The development of farmer varieties avoids the need to purchase hybrid seed anew each season, and the strategy has been used with success in a number of developing countries to increase maize production.

A relatively new development in crop improvement has been the introduction of transgenic hybrids of maize, rather mistakenly called GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. This is a misnomer because all of our domesticated crops have been genetically changed since the first farmers chose plants with larger seeds or good food quality to increase and plant near their homes. Transgenic hybrids are made from lines that have one or more genes introduced from another line or species through molecular transfer techniques. They have been used to confer resistance to specific insect pests or specific herbicides. This is an expensive but highly effective way to incorporate special traits into the genetic package, the seed, which can simplify management and possibly reduce input costs. One likely downside to the technology beyond its cost is the potential for developing insects or weeds with genetic resistance to a single type of control when the new hybrids are widely deployed. Farmers are currently urged to use diversity in their planting of these new hybrids and to combine them with other control strategies so that the technology will last longer.

Chemical Fertilizers

The introduction of manufactured chemical fertilizers, especially during and after the Second World War, brought more convenience to agriculture and spurred the move toward a domination mentality in farmers about how to supply needed crop nutrients in food production. In a few short decades, we abandoned many of the ecological principles, including diverse crop rotations and crop–animal integration, which had been the foundation for much of agriculture and practiced by farmers since before biblical times. In the pursuit of ever-higher yields to increase income and feed a growing human population, with both cereals and increased protein from livestock, we moved away from systems that worked with nature’s cycles and resources toward systems that created large and homogeneous fields and attempted to dominate the production environment.

This strategy of supplying needed nutrients to high-demand crops spurred a new industry of chemical fertilizers, especially to supply the major nutrients—nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium—and starter fertilizers that helped the crop plants in the initial stages of establishment and growth. Fertilizer recommendations were designed to replace those nutrients extracted through the harvested crop, and higher levels just to be sure there was an adequate supply for good rainfall years and maximum crop yields. Yet, too often the early strategies did not include careful nutrient budgeting that took into account other sources of nutrients, such as those in irrigation water, those left over from the previous year, and those available from crop residues that break down and supply needed elements to the next crops. Starter fertilizers help the crop in early stages to mobilize scarce nutrients, especially phosphorus in cold climates, and plants appear to be greener and healthier. Yet, most often these early visible signs of plant vigor are not reflected in yield differences at harvest; thus, the inputs are not economically sound. And overapplication of soluble nutrients such as nitrogen can lead to loss from the field through leaching down the soil profile into groundwater and surface runoff through erosion that reaches streams and lakes. This is a waste of economic resources by the farmer as well as an expense to the environment and to society that has to find ways and resources to remediate the problem.

Good farm managers today are astute nutrient managers who take advantage of all available information from research as well as from their fields and personal experiences. They carefully take into account all sources of nutrients in a complete budget—for example, nitrogen from the previous crop and from soil organic matter, that from irrigation water or anticipated from winter snows and spring rains, that from legume or grass cover crops, all before deciding how much of that essential nutrient to apply. There is technical potential to sample soils and check yields across the field to see where nutrients are most needed and where they are likely to give the highest crop response.

In spite of the best practices in conventional agriculture, we apply increasingly higher levels of nutrients per unit of harvested yield, and most research on chemical approaches to increase nutrient efficiency is becoming more expensive per unit of yield gain. In chemical systems, we have clearly reached the point of diminishing returns to research, at least on the major cereal crops using current research methods.

Chemical Pesticides

Introduction of synthetic chemical pesticides has been another boon to the convenience of farming. Similar to the nutrient situation, increased use of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematicides, and other chemical controls removed the perceived need for crop rotations that had previously contributed to pest management. These products gave quick results by killing insects and weeds within hours, and were seen as a modern solution that would assure protection against pests that had plagued agriculture for centuries. In fact, some of the chemical methods such as weed control through herbicides helped to reduce cultivation and soil erosion. The publicity stimulated by Silent Spring, a landmark book by Rachel Carson (1962), created awareness of the unintended side effects, or emergent properties, of the wide application of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons and other pesticides. From the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency up to the present, the testing and licensing requirements for new chemicals to be used in agriculture have become much more stringent, and most current chemical pesticides are considered by many to be safe. Others maintain that we should be more cautious about the wide deployment of chemicals whose long-term effects may be hard to determine, and that the precautionary principle should guide our decisions. It is rather surprising that many biologists did not realize that wide use of any specific chemical would result in weeds, insects, and other pests that are resistant to that chemical. The current use of Roundup-Ready © corn and soybeans in a 2-year rotation, with application of the same chemical both years, will further pressure weed species to evolve with resistance. Today, there are more than 1,000 species of insects and weeds that have been shown to have resistance in the field to one or more chemicals (Miller, 2004).

One striking change in agriculture that is partly a result of the chemical fertilizer and pesticide revolution has been the simplification of farming systems to continuous cultivation of a single species or a simple 2-year rotation, for example, maize and soybeans in the United States Midwest. A corresponding change in livestock production has been the consolidation and concentration of beef, dairy, swine, and poultry into large confinement units that are often separated in management from crop farming. Confinement grain feeding has reduced the demand for forages; thus, there are fewer hectares of pasture and alfalfa, useful in traditional field rotations and in building soil fertility and controlling pests. A side effect of confinement is the creation of a manure problem, the conversion of a high-quality production input into a waste material that needs to be disposed. A number of creative solutions are being implemented such as composting and generation of methane gas from digesters in feedlots. These provide relatively efficient ways to cycle nutrients back into the production process and solve the expensive waste disposal problem.

Postharvest Loss

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has long recognized the potential for improving food availability that can come with reductions in postharvest loss (FAO, 1981). Postharvest losses have been estimated to be about 21% of the total food in our current supply chain (Niranjan and Shilton, 1994).

Postharvest losses come from every stage after the food has been removed from the plant (ocean or animal), from harvesting, handling, storage, and transport. The reasons and amounts of losses vary greatly and depend on the crop or food and its location. The first means to reduce losses is proper cultivation to prevent any disease or pest problems. Then it is important to plan appropriately for the harvest, planting what is needed (with some overage), harvesting in the correct conditions, and harvesting at the right time. Harvesting should also have minimal physical impacts on the product to prevent accelerated physiological deterioration. Further control measures after the field that reduce losses are proper storage conditions (temperature and humidity), which for some foods can mean immediate cooling.

It is assumed that reducing high postharvest losses requires technological advances. On the contrary, access to the correct means to prevent the losses is the largest hurdle for loss reduction. Limited access to the appropriate means of loss control can cause significant shortfalls. For example, postharvest losses in small-scale fisheries can be among the highest for all commodities (UN Atlas of the Oceans, http://www.oceansatlas.org/html/moreinfo.jsp, accessed June 11, 2008) often due to limited refrigeration and freezer facilities, especially onboard the fishing boats.

Organic Farming

Organic farming is often put forward as an economically viable way of sustainable food production. There has been an annual increase of over 20% in the organic food market in the United States for the past two decades (Om Organics, 2008). This is a significant achievement and one of the only major growth areas in an industry that generally considers food markets as inelastic, only growing with population and as subsequent demand increases.

Organic farmers manage nutrients without application of chemical fertilizer, using a combination of crop rotation of species with different nutrient needs, application of animal manure and/or compost, soil-building cover crops in the sequence, and calculating a careful nutrient budget to assess crop removal as well as potential for building soil fertility over time. Good managers can reduce costs of buying and applying excess nutrients, and at the same time avoid contributing to environmental problems due to nutrient loss from farm fields.

Organic farms are known for use of manure and compost and frequent integration of crops and animals on the same farms to make nutrient cycling more efficient (USDA, 2007). Although there may be excessive cultivation and resulting soil erosion on some organic farms, this approach to agriculture does reduce chemical load in the environment and engenders efficient use of on-farm, renewable production resources.

Another impact of technology has been an increasing industrialization of organic agriculture. The attractiveness of the organic segment of the food industry is increasingly recognized by those in the global agriculture and food sectors, and today over half of all organic food is marketed through large corporate supermarkets rather than small, locally owned, specialized organic food stores. There is concern among many of the founders of the organic food movement that much of the social intent of the original concept is lost, and they are searching for a more restrictive type of certification that would emphasize more than production methods: fair treatment of farm labor, emphasis on local foods, and distribution of benefits to a wider group of citizens.

In contrast to the potentials reported by most authors, there is still debate about potential global production from organic agriculture (Sustainable Food News, 2007). The FAO stated that organic agriculture should be used and promoted for its wholesome and nutritious value as well as the growing income it is providing for developed and developing countries; however, with current yields and land use, it may not be able to feed the 6 billion people on the planet today and the potentially 9 billion in 2050 without judicious use of chemical fertilizers (Sustainable Food News, 2007). We challenge that conclusion, based on personal observations, as the best organic farmers in the Midwest consistently produce crop yields as high if not higher than county averages.

Legislation and Supports

Technologies in agriculture, especially in the United States and the European Union, have been highly successful in raising productivity and increasing production far beyond internal needs and local markets. This has led to major exports of cereals from these regions and growth and later consolidation of grain marketing into a few major corporations.

Although often held up as a model for the success of free market economies and touted as an industry that has benefited farmers in the North as well as food-deficient countries in the South, in fact, the agricultural export industry has brought focused benefits to the larger farm operations and to those supplying industrial agriculture. This includes corporations supplying inputs, commodity traders and exporters. While benefiting these larger operations, the agricultural export industry has often suppressed successful production and skewed markets in many developing countries. The North American Free Trade Agreement is the latest example of this activity of the free market agricultural economy. Far from creating a level-playing field, the legislation and supports in the two major food export countries in North American have favored large-scale operations and funded exports in a number of ways, while small farmers in Mexico have been forced out of farming.

One of the most prominent liberal economists in agriculture, and advisor to presidents from both major parties, is Willard Cochrane from Minnesota. According to Cochrane, long-term attempts to stabilize production and farm incomes through farm programs in the United States have surely done some good by providing subsidies for maintaining prices during hard times and promoting export of food grains (Cochrane, 2003). But they have failed to provide long-term stability, and the result over the course of more than 70 years has been a continuing consolidation of ownership, exit of farmers and farm families, and decline of rural communities. Cochrane further concludes that large regional cooperative projects such as the North American Free Trade Agreement have contributed to greater, rather than lesser, inequities in incomes and success, and are especially destructive for small and family farms in the United States as well as in the other two partner countries.

Another respected agricultural economist in the land grant system, John Ikerd from University of Missouri, maintains that the path toward long-term security in the United States food system is through sustainable agriculture (Ikerd, 2006). In order to solve the negative and unexpected environmental consequences of the current industrial model of agriculture, it is essential to reduce the contamination of waterways and aquifers from pesticide residues and chemical fertilizer nutrients. These residues come from the more than 1.1 billion pounds of pesticide applied annually (Kiely et al., 2004) and over 12 million tons of nitrogen applied annually in the United States (ERS, 2007). The residues in the environment from these chemicals are indicators of the decline in ecological sustainability of present production systems. As Ikerd asserts, recognition of the environmental impacts of conventional agriculture has led to greater scrutiny of the economic and social sustainability of these same systems.

Consolidation has partly been a result of farm support programs (Ikerd, 2008), since payments have been coupled to production, allowing the larger operators to acquire more capital, which is then put into land purchase. With small profit margins on conventional commodity crops, the common wisdom in the western Corn Belt is that a family must farm at least 1,000 acres to earn enough net income to support an adequate lifestyle. As with any conventional wisdom, this represents an average farm size—some farm families add value to products on farm and do well on smaller farms, for example, those that are certified organic and have premiums for their products. Farmers who use imagination to diversify their crops and animal enterprises reduce costs by using primarily internal resources from the farm for maintaining soil nutrition, manage pests through rotation and diversity, and direct market their products often claim that a much smaller farm is adequate.

There is a growing interest in the United States and a strong initiative in the European Union in recognizing the importance of multifunctional rural landscapes, especially as they provide a range of ecosystem services to the larger society. These have been summarized in an the book Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems