It's important to say that the Old Warrior José Abelardo Barbosa de Medeiros, known as Chacrinha, was right: those who don't communicate get confused. If it was already true then, it is much more so now, in times of dubious post-truths that determine everyday actions and reactions, influence relevant and irrelevant facts and guide and directly interfere in the unfolding of social processes in general. Those who don't communicate are confused, and those who communicate poorly are also unhappy.
Feeding the world is still a challenge for humanity to overcome. Just remember that in 2016 approximately 815 million people lived in conditions of food insecurity and insufficiency (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO, State of Food and Nutritional Security in the World – 2017), and that at least 500 million were starving.
In the face of so many achievements, it is almost incomprehensible, and certainly unjustifiable, that this should be the case. Assuming that the problem is not in the sphere of food production, and attributing it solely to poverty and the resulting lack of access to food, is as simplistic as it is false. In the recent period, agricultural prices have exploded due to the inclusion in the market of only a portion of the poor who lived in rural areas – where food insecurity and hunger are concentrated. It was enough to create serious difficulties for several food importing countries and further worsen the food situation of millions of people. Without increasing production there is no way to eliminate hunger in the world.
It is obvious that access to food is equally relevant. The FAO report itself reveals how civil conflicts, wars and the forced displacement of millions of people from their places of origin were responsible for interrupting the 15-year cycle of reducing hunger in the world.
Nowadays, the food issue is not limited to insecurity caused by insufficient supply or difficulty in accessing available food. In the most developed countries and even in those with a medium level of development, such as Brazil, the number of people affected by dysfunctions associated with poor quality of food is growing, and in some, obesity has already been classified as epidemic, reaching even a high number of children. On the other hand, the aging of the population requires a healthier, safer diet, free from the excessive use of inputs that negatively impact the environment and human and animal health. Food is valued in natura, local production, the so-called short circuits, from farm to table, but life in megametropolises and the globalization of food standards reinforce the importance of “industrialization”, in broad sense, of food, processing, packaging, conservation, etc. In this context, more food alone does not solve the equation; The world requires and demands more food that meets institutional standards that go well beyond quality and safety, and which are reflected in a large number of agreements and protocols that regulate everything from the protection of biodiversity to animal welfare.
It is, therefore, not trivial to ensure the world's food supply, in adequate quantity and quality, especially when taking into account population growth, the set of rules that guide production in general and the growing demands of society.
In the case of agriculture, perhaps the most relevant pressure is the inescapable environmental dimension. It is no longer possible to expand production at the expense of the environment, without taking into account the impacts on the climate, soil and water contamination, the depredation of forests and mangroves, animal life and biodiversity. Despite the fantastic progress of science, today it is more difficult to increase production and productivity than it was in the recent past, when it was much easier to socially validate a technology that offered advantages in terms of production and cost, regardless of negative externalities, and disseminate it. it among producers.
Undeniably, this is an equation that can only be solved through innovation, in which Science and research play a central role. The importance of so-called traditional knowledge, the use of ancient agricultural techniques and even so-called agroecological procedures, which have aroused the interest and enthusiasm of many segments, cannot be denied. However, none of this knowledge or practices has any viability for sustainable use in the contemporary world without the intervention of Science, in its entirety. Only scientific knowledge is capable of developing and validating solutions that allow expanding food production and respecting the set of institutional restrictions from which we cannot and should not escape.
The use of science and technology for food production has always been surrounded by controversy. On the one hand, it is common for us to idealize Nature and the natural, as if everything were harmonious and functional, a vision that fuels adverse reactions to the so-called agroindustrialization. On the other hand, technological progress is indeed full of contradictions, it has positive impacts, but it also generates negative side effects, some of which are inevitable and often even greater than the benefits. These contradictions and negative externalities fuel reactions against intensive agriculture and agroindustry in general, which in practice have been responsible for overcoming the so-called Malthusian ghost since the spread of the Green Revolution in the late 50s. important to say that with all the contradictions associated with technological progress, man reached the 21st century living longer and better than at any other time, the proportion of poor people is also the lowest and the quality of life is not comparable to that of the past.
Regardless of this evidence, at least in part the controversies involving Science, Agriculture, Food and Society are also due to false problems, misunderstandings about the dynamics of production processes, misinformation about the real alternatives available to meet society's objectives and even even to the cognitive limits imposed by ideological narratives that detach themselves from the evidence and replace reality with idealized visions of society, assuming it is possible to transform them through communication, often instantaneously. Some relevant debates, on complex topics, are reduced to bipolar schemes, contrasting good and evil, good and bad, attributing good and good to some actors and evil and bad to others. It is not uncommon to even observe the criminalization of certain technological options and production systems, regardless of objective assessments of the negative attributes attributed to the condemned options, or the validity of the alternatives available to replace them. These polarizations refer to both agricultural production and the food industry in general. Exceptions become rules and distortions to be corrected, individual failures and even criminal actions on the part of an agent are easily generalized to the entire sector.
Basically, there is a gap in communication between the social actors involved in the research, production, distribution and consumption of food, which needs to be overcome to ensure a solution to the equation/challenge of sustainable food production. And this abyss has relevant consequences for development, especially because technological options and the innovation process depend on social sanction to be viable, and this sanction is no longer given only by the market, as was the case in the past. It first goes through the regulatory framework and the prior approval of society, via the actions of organized groups that today have enough strength to condemn or legitimize technologies and productive options. In this context, the power of communication can make interesting solutions unfeasible and put in motion dubious alternatives, which are more costly for society, but which meet the preferences of social groups with greater persuasive power. The content doesn't matter so much. It's worth the bottle!
It's important to say that Brazilian agriculture has been a victim of misinformation and poor communication. In the last 25 years, ¾ of the spectacular growth in agricultural production is explained by the increase in total factor productivity; grain production multiplied by 12,2 between 1960 and 2016, and the cultivated area grew only 2,6 times. The physical yield per hectare increased from 783 kg to 3.662 kg in the same period. Even livestock farming, traditionally extensive and predatory, showed significant progress, with a reduction in the occupied area and degraded pastures. No country in the world has made and is making as much progress towards sustainability as Brazil. But the image of agriculture continues to be that of Casa Grande and Senzala. The past condemns her!
This topic will be discussed in the 12th Latin American Symposium on Food Science, whose central theme is “Food science and its impact on the changing world”, which will take place between November 4th and 7th, at Unicamp. Everyone is invited to the panel Food, Science and Society: the challenge of communication, on the afternoon of November 5th.