At LeftField, we understand the power of knowledge and data to provide answers or simply to provoke discussion. We sift through many sources of numbers, news, reports and other information and boil it down for clients to improve the efficiency of their decision-making. We don’t pretend to have all the answers, but we provide ideas and suggestions to help improve clients’ bottom lines. If we don’t accomplish that, we’re not doing our job.
Is it just me or do others also get really annoyed at food activists that would like to force farmers to abandon technological advances and return to a “simpler” time when all a farmer had was a hoe, a pitchfork and a straw hat? Why is it that new technology is automatically assumed to be bad or that manmade chemicals are worse than naturally occurring ones? Full disclosure: I don’t receive a penny from Monsanto. Would these activists be willing to give up “factory communication” devices like cell phones and the internet and only use old technology like the telegram or two cans and a string? Why should farmers be relegated to the 19th century while the rest of the world moves ahead, using the latest technology? Feeding the increasing population will require even more advances, not less. So far, technology has reduced the volume of pesticides used, the amount of land required to produce crops and losses due to insect damage. And it has the potential to increase yields even more through water use efficiency and disease resistance. That’s what people in food deficit countries need. Until these naïve activists come up with a better alternative, I wish they would just stop with their incessant demands. Required reading: Peak Farmland and the Prospect for Farmland Sparing.