There is nothing more crucial to our daily survival than the food we eat. Agriculture is how we make that happen. Every day, farmers harvest crops that are transported, processed, packaged, shipped, stocked onto shelves and sold to 7.8 billion consumers around the world. Tomorrow, they will do it all again, and the day after that, and so on.

As incredible as this accomplishment is, it does not occur without consequences. Nutrients, insecticides and soil run off into waterways, polluting our rivers, lakes, aquifers and oceans. With more than 800 million people going to bed hungry every day and two billion more on the way by 2050, demand continues to outpace supply. As a result, each day, forests are raised to make room for more crops and livestock, devastating biodiversity and contributing significantly to carbon emissions.

According to WWF, “Over the last 30 years, the world has lost an area of forest nearly half the size of the continental United States. We have dumped literally billions of tons of toxic chemicals, raw sewage, oil and agricultural runoff into our oceans and we have depleted 70% of the Earth's most commercially important marine fish stocks.” Where once conservationists targeted corporations, more and more, it appears that agriculture is the villain in the conservation story.

It’s easy to see why they might believe this. With forests and wildlife populations disappearing, the global environment is clearly getting worse. If agriculture is the primary driver of deforestation and wildlife loss, then it stands to reason that agriculture must be failing.

Last month, the European Commission released its Farm to Fork Strategy to address the challenges of sustainable food systems by recognising the links between healthy people, healthy societies and a healthy planet. To achieve these goals, the Commission highlighted three key objectives: reducing pesticide risk by 50%, fertiliser use by 20% and expanding organic production to 25% of agricultural land by 2030. According to the report, “People pay increasing attention to environmental, health, social and ethical issues and they seek value in food more than ever before… They want food that is fresh, less processed and sustainably sourced.” 

But, if agriculture is really bad and getting worse, why is it that farm production in Europe and the United States is nearly four times higher for crops like corn than it was 50 years ago, while forests in these regions are stable or expanding?

Agriculture has come a long way since 1980. US farmers produce each ear of corn using about a third fewer greenhouse gasses, 50% less water and with 60% less erosion on the land. Improved seeds, drip irrigation, big data and hundreds of other innovations have ensured that the footprint of agriculture in the US and EU is dramatically smaller per unit of production than it was in past decades. And what about the pesticide risk that seems so critical to the Farm to Fork Strategy? It’s down 20% in just the last five years.

Even when the contributions of productivity gains are acknowledged, agriculture still, somehow, comes across as the villain. For example, the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science notes that “Over the past 50 years, increased usage of chemical fertilisers, irrigation systems, pesticides, and mechanised technologies has doubled agricultural productivity.” This seems like an excellent start, but the article goes on to state that “This trend of agricultural intensification has resulted in the reduction of the biodiversity of natural ecosystems and the loss of habitats for terrestrial and aquatic animal species.”

So, is intensification the problem or the solution? According to Our World in Data, crop and grazing land has expanded by about 0.5 billion hectares over the last 50 years. While that may seem like a lot, it represents an expansion of only about 10% from a base of 4.5 billion hectares in 1970. Without productivity gains, we would have needed to cut down another 1 billion hectares of forest to feed the world. The problem would seem to be too little intensification, not too much.

It makes you wonder what the Commission’s goal of increasing organic production will mean for global forests. After all, two years ago, the Commission published a “Knowledge for policy” report noting that, under comparable conditions, organic farming produced 34% less food than conventional systems.

The United Nation’s Sustainable Development (SDG) Goal 2 focuses on ending hunger and urges countries to double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers. Doubling productivity is possible, but it will not be achieved by foregoing agricultural innovation. Consumers may say they avoid processed foods, but we cannot forget that preservatives in our food enhance safety and affordability and reduce food waste, which consumers also care about. Newer processed foods, like the Impossible and Beyond burgers, could contribute to our 2050 protein needs with appropriate policies in place.

Achieving our conservation goals requires farmers to continue to produce more and more food on the same amount of land or less. But, how one frames a problem determines if people are with you or against you. If the challenge of sustainably and nutritiously feeding the world in 2050 is framed in such a way that farmers are viewed as the problem, it is unlikely that farmers will work with governments and conservationists to achieve the SDGs. On the other hand, if consumers recognised how much the world’s remaining forests owe to the past accomplishments of farmers and scientists, we could be assured that farmers would continue to deliver the productivity gains we need.

Despite what the Farm to Fork Strategy from the Commission and the Living Planet Report from the WWF might suggest, agriculture is not bad and getting worse. It is good and getting better every day, just not fast enough. If we do a better job telling the story of agriculture, consumers will come to see agriculture as the solution to our problems, rather than the problem to be solved. If we are successful in sharing this message, agriculture will, in fact, save the planet.