The Future of Sustainable Protein is… Complicated

Here is a piece variation of a piece I wrote for the Center for International Policy Studies blog, originally published in the University of Ottawa Gazette here. 

“The Paleoketoveganmacrofasting Diet: Stop the Madness!!!” This was the amusing title of a recent presentation by Dr. Shawn Arent, a kinesiology professor at Rutgers University. The talk was aimed at personal trainers. But for the rest of us, the title hints at the madness of all the emerging (conflicting) dietary practices (and increasingly, institutional policies) surrounding the provision of protein that appear to be gaining credence in North America. This highlights the various beliefs about what does or does not qualify as a “healthy,” “ethical,” or “sustainable” food.

If present trends are any measure, this madness is likely to continue. A wide range of forces are working in the background to profoundly reshape the global agri-food sector. The world’s population is growing at a tremendous pace, with more than 200,000 additional mouths to feed on the planet every day. Experts therefore expect a struggle in meeting the future demand for nutritious food. At the same time, hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of extreme poverty. Along with these rising incomes globally, the demand for meat — one of the traditional foods through which humans acquire protein — has grown significantly, putting additional pressure on land and resources.

A related problem pertains to the trends of degradation and/or overuse of water, soil, and forests, as conventional agricultural practices — heavily relianton fossil fuels, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and other inputs — strain Earth’s natural areas and biodiversity. Heightened ethical awareness about the treatment of animals in conventional agriculture is also fueling dietary and culinary change. This gives rise to everything from “organic,” “grass-fed,” “free-range,” and/or “hormone and antibiotic-free” meat to “plant-based meat,” and everything in between.

Meanwhile, advances in technology — from genetic engineering to lab-grown cultures — are redefining possibilities in food production and simultaneously destabilizing agri-food markets. Increasing (and competing) concerns about the nutritional profile of carbohydrates and fats are also reshaping dietary advice about what protein sources should be avoided or included in a healthy diet. (Plant and animal sourced proteins typically feature different nutritional profiles in terms of what macronutrients come along with them.)  On top of all this, there’s the existential threat of climate change, which is wreaking havoc on food production.

Admittedly it’s a lot to take-in, even for those who study this for a living. Yet as complex as it all may be, there is a strong case for embracing this complexity when crafting policy for the agri-food sector or institutional dietary policies. Why? While it’s certainly important to have clear and cogent policies that are easy to follow, there’s a risk that oversimplifications in policy will be unable to account for the different life circumstances and experiences of citizens, consumers, and employees in different geographical contexts.

Here’s an example: There’s been a lot of talk lately about instituting bans on meat at various public institutions and private businesses. Policy proposals of this sort have been informed by meta-data studies that compare the environmental footprints of common protein sources, such as one recent high-profile study in Science. One of this study’s co-authors was recently asked about the key “take-away” of his research. His response was that “avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet.” While on the surface this seems logical considering global-scale data comparisons, it’s not hard to see that this universal advice paints a monolithic picture of the typical food consumer.

The advice may indeed be accurate, but it also may be way off. It really depends on the specific context of various consumers does it not? For instance, if you’re a jet-setting frequent flyer; or if you hunt or produce most of your own food; or if you only infrequently indulge in meat and dairy (and support local sustainable producers while you’re at it); or if you derive most of your protein from intensively farmed soy; etc., etc., — then there may be more effective ways to reduce your environmental footprint. Further, there could be instances where completely banning meat and dairy would work against local sustainability objectives. Or against the dietary needs of people with chronic intestinal or nutritional issues.

The above example pertains to the environmental impact of different protein sources, but similarly sweeping claims and counterclaims have been made about the ethical and health merits of avoiding some foods over others. There’s lots of expert advice out there and it’s bound to grow both in volume and scope. But as we attempt to convert information into sustainable policy for protein provision, we ought to keep in mind the specific dynamics and local complexities that shape regional agri-food contexts. It’s just (complex) common sense!

Beware the glitz of neo-industrial agriculture

[NOTE: This post was originally published as part of Policy Options' "Canadian Agriculture at the Cutting Edge"]

Canada is betting big on intensifying industrial agriculture, but we ought to support agro-ecology as well.

Till the land. Seed annual crop. Fertilize and irrigate. Spray for weeds and pests. Harvest. Repeat. This simple process, give or take a few steps, describes a considerable (and growing) portion of contemporary agriculture in Canada. More than half of the nation’s farmland is now dedicated to the production of crops that are produced on large tracts of land with highly advanced industrial equipment (like computerized tractors with proprietary software). Because of shifting global economic forces in the last decade, including increasing grain prices and rising demand in Asia, this type of agriculture has driven considerable growth in Canada’s GDP, significantly increased export volumes, and generated profits for large farms and agri-food corporations. Industrial livestock, fattened up by these crops, have contributed to Canada’s growing agri-food and seafood export revenues.

Industrial agriculture’s strong growth is exactly why policy-makers want to intensify it in the coming years, increasing agri-food exports, unrolling new technologies and automation in the sector, and doing a better job of capturing value from domestic processing. By embarking on this “new industrial revolution” in agriculture, proponents argue, Canada could become a “trusted global leader in safe, nutritious and sustainable food for the 21st century.” This sunny narrative depicts Canada playing a key role in feeding the world’s growing population, while growing its economy and protecting its environment.

Despite affording evident benefits to Canada’s status, the agri-food sector’s neo-industrialization is not all glamorous. Specifically, there is good reason to reflect critically on claims about the system’s long-term sustainability. There are social, economic and environmental challenges to the neo-industrialization of agriculture, and I argue that Canada ought not to put all its eggs in the neo-industrial basket, so to speak. Rather, there is much to be gained from also betting on small-scale “agro-ecological” farms, if the goal is to make Canada’s agri-food sector more sustainable.

First, let us consider some social and economic features of neo-industrialization (these are, after all, two key pillars of sustainability, along with environmental concerns). To start off, it is important here to make a distinction between large industrial farms, which cater to global markets, and small and mid-sized farms, which primarily aim to contribute to domestic food supply. Arguably, it is the former group that is truly benefiting from the neo-industrialization trend, while the rest are struggling to get by, if not disappearing altogether. In Canada, there are less than 10,000 farms with gross revenues over $1,000,000, while there are more than 200,000 farms with annual revenues under that benchmark.

Not surprisingly, the top5-percent-earning farms produce over half the nation’s agricultural revenue. While the total number of farms in Canada has declined since 1941 (by a quarter between 1990 and 2011), the number of “million-dollar farms” has actually grown in recent years. The average size of a Canadian farm has grown too (this trend is far more pronounced in the prairies), fuelled not only by urbanization (and sprawling development), but also by the corporatization of agriculture. The percentage of incorporated farms grew from about 4 percent in 1981 to nearly 20 percent in 2011 (and yes, the largest, highest-earning farms are more likely to be incorporated).

Since the early 1990s, the average farm operator is seven years older; is more likely to be renting the land they work with; and is working fewer hours on the farm (which suggests a greater need for supplemental off-farm income, yet the proportion of farm operators finding work off the farm has also declined since 1990). As well, the number of agricultural workers has steadily declined in across the country (a trend that started over a century ago). Finally, while the nation’s outstanding farm debts in 1990 stood at around $23.6 billion, the figure has climbed precipitously to $91.7 billion in 2015 – perhaps not surprising when one considers that a new combine can easily cost over half a million dollars.

We must ask ourselves whether these social and economic trends, partly driven by the steady industrialization of the agricultural sector, are sustainable? Will the predicted prosperity in Canadian agriculture be shared by all producers or just the richest few? How long can effects such as the hollowing out of rural areas, the decline in agricultural work hours and the aging of the agricultural population be sustained? As the National Farmers Union (NFU) recently concluded, “farmer autonomy and local control of land and production, which are the foundations of food sovereignty, are threatened by excessive farm debt loads, input financing, the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses. . .and by land grabbing,” among other threats. It’s not clear this situation is sustainable for the majority of Canada’s farmers and agricultural communities.

Industrialization has reduced the amount of inputs (feed, fertilizers, water) and the harmful outputs (greenhouse gases, waste and pollutants) per unit of product, but industrial landscapes require high levels of inputs and generate unwanted outputs.

We must also think critically about the third pillar of sustainability – the environment. Proponents of neo-industrialization argue that technological innovation and economies of scale will yield more efficient equipment and practices that will have less impact on the environment. This argument, which is centred on the benefits of “intensity” (the idea that the industrial model’s larger scale of production allows it to yield more product per unit of environmental damage), starts to unravel when we look at the environment holistically. Put differently, while industrialization has demonstrably reduced the amount of inputs required (feed, fertilizers, water) and the harmful outputs (greenhouse gases, waste and pollutants) per unit of product, the fact remains that industrial landscapes require high levels of inputs and generate unwanted outputs.

Regardless of how efficient the practice may be at producing food, industrial monocropping — invented after the Second World War and facilitated by the exponential growth in petroleum production — is in many ways an unmitigated environmental disaster. In terms of biodiversity alone, large croplands have a devastating impact, obliterating large areas of wildlife habitat and migration corridors, drastically narrowing the genetic pool of food crops, and depending on harmful herbicides and pesticides that impact soil biota, flora and fauna. In such settings it becomes necessary to apply chemical pesticides to protect crops from wild herbivores, birds and insects, and as the UN notes, global pesticide use has had “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole.” In terms of agricultural soils, severe harm has been brought about by industrial farming practices, which rely on synthetic fertilizers and other chemical inputs, and which often leave soils bare, leading to problems like soil erosion, the loss of soil organic carbon (SOC), nitrogen depletion, and salinization.

Perhaps one saving grace for Canada’s mega-crop producers is the growing acceptance of no-till and other low-disturbance practices since the 1980s, which has significantly reduced the risk of soil erosion, loss of SOC, and salinization. However, while no-till practices are helping to minimize the ecological footprint of industrial agriculture (and should be a requirement), a study by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration in Saskatchewan highlights a range of structural challenges that constrain industrial farmers from fully adopting these practices, and these constraints themselves are exacerbated by climate change.

Taking a step back, there is an inherent contradiction between the processes and structures embedded in industrial agriculture and the types of social, economic, and environmental remediation it claims to carry out. Despite its apparent macro-benefits, there is a case to be made that the neo-industrial model is structured upon a fundamentally unsustainable cycle that benefits only a small portion of farmers; locks many others into endless debt; degrades agricultural soils in the long-term; leads to biodiversity loss; contaminates water bodies; exacerbates climate change; erodes domestic food security; and catalyzes the decline of family farms, traditional agricultural knowledge and rural communities.

If sustainability in the agri-food system is what is sought, perhaps Canada should consider a two-tiered policy — one that privileges agro-ecological farming as well as mainstream agriculture. In its approach, agro-ecology is completely different from mainstream agriculture. It is founded on ecological principles such as the regeneration of landscapes, habitats and natural cycles; the reduction of external and synthetic inputs (which reduces the production footprint and gives farmers more autonomy); and a commitment to improving communities through access to healthy, diverse, local food. While it comes in many shapes and forms (from restorative permaculture to urban farming), agro-ecological practices are catching on in Canada and abroad, and are supported by a range of organizations and institutions (like the NFU, USC Canada, Food Secure Canada, even the UN Human Rights Council) as an essential response to the social, economic and ecological challenges brought about by decades of industrialization.

While neo-industrialization is indeed likely to dominate the future of Canadian farming, we must ensure that other, more sustainable approaches to Canadian agriculture continue to thrive alongside it. The agro-ecology movement is admittedly just a drop in the agricultural sector’s bucket. Nevertheless, its careful thought about treating agricultural landscapes as natural ecosystems, production of food for local communities and protecting farmer livelihoods are things we cannot let flounder in this age of social, economic and environmental uncertainty.

Changes South of the Border Offer both Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture in Canada

This post was originally published in The Hill Times, on February 20th, 2017.

By Ryan M. Katz-Rosene, Marie-Josée Massicotte, and Christopher Kelly-Bisson

A number of obstacles presently stand in the way of efforts to make Canada’s agricultural system more sustainable. A heavy reliance on chemical inputs, industrial processing, and long distances between farm and plate have contributed to high rates of greenhouse gas emissions, degradation of water and soil quality, and threats to biodiversity. These ecological challenges have mirrored social and economic challenges in the pursuit of sustainable agriculture, including a steady decline in the number of farms, concurrent with growth in the average size of farming operations, and the presence of a sink-or-swim environment where only the largest, most-mechanized and capital-intensive farms can compete.

Many expert analyses indicate the need to shift away from this model if Canada wants to be a true agricultural leader. When UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food Olivier De Schutter visited Canada in 2012, he noted in a follow-up report how a defining force in shaping this country’s agricultural sector has been its steady orientation towards trade liberalization. The sector’s narrow focus on developing export markets has come at the expense of a lack of attention to the difficulties faced by a growing number of Canadians in meeting their basic food needs, and simultaneously contributed to ecological problems associated with the industrialized agri-food system.

Recent political shifts south of the border will therefore have serious implications in determining the available opportunities and limitations to the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada. The Trump administration’s protectionist rhetoric poses overt challenges to Canada’s export-oriented agriculture sector. Canada is the fifth-largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, with 58% of its agricultural product destined for export. Just over half of these exports go to the US, while much of the rest finds its way to Mexico, Europe, Japan, and China. Undoubtedly, some Canadians will use these developments to call for further liberalization in the agricultural sector. They may call for renewed bilateral trade talks with Asian nations, or for appeasing the Trump administration by agreeing to remove some of the safeguards Canada has implemented on imports of dairy products, poultry, and grains. Yet rather than return to old habits of liberalization, we should recognize the opportunities herein for making Canadian agriculture more sustainable through a renewed focus on domestic agri-food policy.

One opportunity lies in the need to simultaneously protect and reform supply-managed sectors to ensure the viability of rural communities and facilitate the transition of farm ownership to the next generation of farmers. This means standing firm against any concessions on tariff-rate quota, acting swiftly to close loopholes and effectively regulate infractions, but also exploring options to make access to quota easier for new farmers. Reforms could take the form – as suggested by Quebec’s Union Paysanne – of capping quota prices and limiting the quantity that can be owned by a single farm. This could offer a cost effective means of reducing farm sizes and making diversified agro-ecological production viable for a growing number of new farmers.

Another opportunity lies in the need to scope out a truly comprehensive national food policy to build a just and sustainable food system in the interests of producers and consumers alike. In drafting Growing Forward 3, the next five-year policy plan for the agricultural and agri-food sector, the federal government must actively support an agro-ecological transition, rather than continuing to privilege large-scale industrial production. In short, the challenge to business-as-usual practices within the agricultural sector offers the opportunity to reconsider the interconnections between policies on trade liberalization, the industrialization of Canadian farms, the financialization of agricultural production and handover of decision-making power to profit-motivated investment managers, and the manifestation of range of serious environmental problems.

While changes south of the border may be interpreted by some as a reason to further liberalize agricultural trade, either by sweetening the terms of NAFTA or seeking new export markets, we remind policy-makers about the present opportunities to be found in the current shake-up, and the possibility of reworking a national food policy to tackle head-on some of the domestic sustainability challenges in Canada’s agricultural sector.


Ryan M. Katz-Rosene (SSHRC Post-doctoral Researcher), Marie-Josée Massicotte (Associate Professor), and Christopher Kelly-Bisson (Doctoral Candidate) are all based at the University of Ottawa’s School of Political Studies and members of the Laboratory for the Interdisciplinary Study of Food.