If you want a breakdown of the likely near future of agriculture throughout the world, you’ll probably want to read this brief from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). As you no doubt have gathered, the ISAAA is a pro-GMO, pro-biotech organization and the above document outlines some examples of how both are changing farming around the world. I hope to cover some of these on this humble page in the near future.
Clearly, the ISAAA sees GMOs and biotech as the future of agriculture. However, at the same time they may be missing the boat. What if the future of food production isn’t in agriculture at all?
By now you’ve probably heard about the exciting developments in the field of 3D printing. This technology allows mankind to produce things that God and/or nature has always had a monopoly upon, such as human organs. What we’ve heard less about is its potential for producing actual consumable food – food that can improve on nature’s limitations. In the future you could quite easily design any food you want, have it taste any way you want, and tailor it to deliver the nutrients you need.
This article on digitaltrends.com explains it better than I can. To me it brings up some sobering questions. If all the food we need can be produced in a laboratory, why would we need agriculture at all? Will there still be a role for agriculture? If 3D food printing can feed the world better than agriculture, should we even care?
There’s obviously no reason to sell the farm yet. The technology is, at best, still in its infancy. However, if there’s one thing I’ve learned as I’ve witnessed newspapers’ alarmingly rapid defeat to digital options is that there’s wisdom in assuming that far flung technology is going to reach unimaginable speed, accuracy and user friendliness before you even have a chance to retire. The grain sector should take particular note. According to the article, a 3D food printer called the Foodini can print raw doughs that can be used to partially make pizza, filled pasta, quiche, and brownies.
That’s all well and good, you may say, but is anybody going to want to eat a 3D printed steak? The article suggests that meat is at least one food group for which consumers are not ready to give up authenticity. But what happens if the technology gets so good they won’t be able to tell the difference? My guess is that farmers will capitalize on consumers’ connection to the land and fears of new food technology by marketing their wares as the safe, healthy choice. Essentially, all farm-produced food will become organic food.
But how long can that last? Society’s growing disconnect between the farm and the food they eat is already an ongoing problem and not one that is likely to improve 20 to 50 years from now. As long as 3D printed food not only tastes good and doesn’t kill anybody but also produces much more food in a way that demands far less environmentally harmful and expensive inputs, who is going to argue?
Another frightening possibility is the loss of agriculture as an industry. We’ve already watched as robotics took the human factor out of manufacturing and the Internet changed the way we consume media. Both are a drop in the bucket compared to losing agriculture. At what point will it become fact that the only people who can even afford to buy all this plentiful digital food will be the ones who control the technology? In other words, if you’re not producing robots that can automate one consumable or another, will you even have a job in the future?
I don’t want to be an alarmist or a Luddite. Printed food could very well be the best thing that will ever happen to mankind, feeding us all and opening up brand new opportunities we cannot even dream of today. But until then, farm organizations and food processors should keep a very close eye on proceedings and be prepared for agriculture’s biggest public relations challenge in 14,000 years.
Clearly, the ISAAA sees GMOs and biotech as the future of agriculture. However, at the same time they may be missing the boat. What if the future of food production isn’t in agriculture at all?
By now you’ve probably heard about the exciting developments in the field of 3D printing. This technology allows mankind to produce things that God and/or nature has always had a monopoly upon, such as human organs. What we’ve heard less about is its potential for producing actual consumable food – food that can improve on nature’s limitations. In the future you could quite easily design any food you want, have it taste any way you want, and tailor it to deliver the nutrients you need.
This article on digitaltrends.com explains it better than I can. To me it brings up some sobering questions. If all the food we need can be produced in a laboratory, why would we need agriculture at all? Will there still be a role for agriculture? If 3D food printing can feed the world better than agriculture, should we even care?
There’s obviously no reason to sell the farm yet. The technology is, at best, still in its infancy. However, if there’s one thing I’ve learned as I’ve witnessed newspapers’ alarmingly rapid defeat to digital options is that there’s wisdom in assuming that far flung technology is going to reach unimaginable speed, accuracy and user friendliness before you even have a chance to retire. The grain sector should take particular note. According to the article, a 3D food printer called the Foodini can print raw doughs that can be used to partially make pizza, filled pasta, quiche, and brownies.
That’s all well and good, you may say, but is anybody going to want to eat a 3D printed steak? The article suggests that meat is at least one food group for which consumers are not ready to give up authenticity. But what happens if the technology gets so good they won’t be able to tell the difference? My guess is that farmers will capitalize on consumers’ connection to the land and fears of new food technology by marketing their wares as the safe, healthy choice. Essentially, all farm-produced food will become organic food.
But how long can that last? Society’s growing disconnect between the farm and the food they eat is already an ongoing problem and not one that is likely to improve 20 to 50 years from now. As long as 3D printed food not only tastes good and doesn’t kill anybody but also produces much more food in a way that demands far less environmentally harmful and expensive inputs, who is going to argue?
Another frightening possibility is the loss of agriculture as an industry. We’ve already watched as robotics took the human factor out of manufacturing and the Internet changed the way we consume media. Both are a drop in the bucket compared to losing agriculture. At what point will it become fact that the only people who can even afford to buy all this plentiful digital food will be the ones who control the technology? In other words, if you’re not producing robots that can automate one consumable or another, will you even have a job in the future?
I don’t want to be an alarmist or a Luddite. Printed food could very well be the best thing that will ever happen to mankind, feeding us all and opening up brand new opportunities we cannot even dream of today. But until then, farm organizations and food processors should keep a very close eye on proceedings and be prepared for agriculture’s biggest public relations challenge in 14,000 years.